1 2025:CGHC:7428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 296 of 2025 1 - Roshan Jaiswal S/o Late Nekchand Jaiswal Aged About 40 Years R/o Purani Basti, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Surjeet Singh Gulati S/o Late Amar Singh Gulati Aged About 70 Years R/o Near Gayatri Mandir, Parivahan Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Harcharan Singh Gulati S/o Late Sant Singh Gulati Aged About 65 Years R/o Near Gayatri Mandir, Parivahan Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Premlal Bhojasiya W/o Late Harishachandra Bhojasiya Aged About 73 Years R/o Plot No. 792, R.K. Nagar, Phase-1, Niharika Kosabadi, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) 5 - Manoj Kumar Jasrani S/o Pratap Jasrani Aged About 48 Years R/o SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.13 16:06:46 +0530 2 Near Saraswati Trading Company Nahar Road, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) 6 - Vivek Jasrani S/o Pratap Jasrani Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Saraswati Trading Company Nahar Road, Korba,tahsil And District Korba C.G. 7 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Late Mahipal Sahu Aged About 68 Years R/o Indira Vihar, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban And General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Korba Through Commissioner Korba, District Korba C.G. 3 - Collector District Korba C.G. 4 - Executive Engineer Hasdev Bairaj Water Resources Department Division Rampur/darri Korba, District Korba C.G. 5 - The Sub Divisional OfÏcer Water Resources Department, Rampur/darri Division, District-Korba C.G. 3 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 : Shri Vikram Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent no. 2. : Shri Abhinav Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 12.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent no. 2/Municipal Corporation not to construct boundary wall in the public approach road. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land bearing khasra No. 626/1, 621/1, 622/1, 623/5, 620/11 & 626/8 area 0.410, 0.49 acre, 0.43 acre, 0.049 hectare, 0.020 hectare and 0.032 hectare situated at village Korba, P.H. No. 16 R.I. Cirle-Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.) is owned by the petitioner and the Khasra No. 626/2, 627/2, 674, 675, 676, 677/2 were acquired by the Irrigation Department in the year 1981 for the construction of Barraj and canal. In remaining 20-22 decimal a electricity substation was constructed. Now the respondent no. 2 is raising a construction of the boundary wall on the lands belongs to Irrigation Department which was being used by the petitioner as well as some of the public of the area as a public road. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in case of construction of boundary wall, the petitioner shall suffer irreparably and they will be deprived from using the public road which is under the Irrigation Department. 4 3. Learned counsel for the Corporation on instruction submits that the land in question in which the constructions are being made is of the State Government i.e. the Irrigation Department and with the permission and sanction of the administration the boundary wall of the multi level parking is being constructed, the Corporation is only a nodal agency for the construction of the said multi level parking and the boundary of the said parking and the corporation has nothing to do with the land in question. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the claim of the petitioner that the construction is being made over a public road is concern, the same cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, the respondent/Collector will examine by demarcation and spot inspection over the land in question to ascertain whether there is any obstruction of the public way in the area or not and in fact there is no such obstruction is there while constructing the boundary wall and the multi level parking which is being constructed by the Corporation. 5. I have heard learned counsels for all the parties and perused the pleadings made by the petitioner. 6. As the construction of multi level parking as well as the boundary wall by the District Administration is concerned the said construction is being done on the government land, the petitioner can raise the claim regarding obstruction of public way before appropriate forum, however, the District Collector is directed to make a demarcation and spot inspection in presence of the petitioner as well as the 5 effected parties there including the municipal corporation and take a decision on the claim of the petitioner and ensure that no obstruction of way to the petitioner or any public is caused, because of the construction of boundary wall, which is being made in the multi level parking. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib