ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of W.P. No. 1186/2001, W.P. No. 1187/2001 and W.P. No. 1188/2001.
2. These three petitions were filed on 20th July, 2001 for restraining the Municipal Corporation to demolish the shops said to be constructed in contravention of law. In fact, the petitioner has stated in para 4 of the petition itself that in the morning of 19th of July, 2001 the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have started demolishing a triple storied building raised by the respondent
No. 3 in the year 1999, in a part of which the petitioner is carrying on his business after the purchase of a small shop in the said building.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the building, though constructed illegally, has been demolished and he is entitled for compensation from the Corporation as well as respondent No. 3.
4. The respondents-Corporation have filed joint return in all the three petitions. The stand of the Corporation is that the construction made by respondent No. 3 on this area was in contravention of law. It is stated that on the basement, shops were constructed which was reserved for parking and set-ups were not as per the map. It was also submitted that 2nd and 3rd floor were also not as per the map. It is said that notices were issued to respondent No. 3/buildcr from time to time. It is staled in return by the Corporation that the construction was not made in accordance with the map and building permission. Mere deposit of tax does not mean that illegal construction has been condoned. The Revenue Department of the Corporation collects tax on the basis of calculations of constructed area, and at that time no enquiry is made whether the construction is legal or illegal. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is free to sue the builder for damages. It is further stated that upon serving of notice on the builders, the petitioner and other occupants of the shop came to know that illegal construction is required to be removed and they requested the authority of the Corporation-respondent to give sufficient time to remove their goods and belongings. The answering respondents permitted them to do so and illegal construction was removed only after they vacated the premises. The petitioner ought to have made due enquiry from the notice of the answering respondent and then should have proceeded to purchase the shop. Had the petitioner made due and proper enquiry, he could have come to know that notices have been issued in the past to the builder about illegal and unauthorised construction made.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that information of notice was given to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no information was given to him. He further submits that the petition as filed is not maintainable. He also submits that due information was given to the petitioner regarding demolition and the petitioner also approached the Corporation authorities but in vain. He further submits that the petition involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction. He submitted that he is not liable for compensation.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the parties, it is manifestly clear that this petition at the behest of the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact. Even otherwise, the area in occupation of the petitioner has practically been demolished.
7. Learned counsel for the Corporation contended that the Corporation is entitled to cost of demolition. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that he is entitled for compensation from Corporation as well as builder.
9. The case thus involves determination of rights and liabilities inter-se. The rule of prudence and caution requires that such dispute if any may be raised by the parties in duty constituted suit.
10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find the present one to be fit case for exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
11. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of.
12. Counsel fee as per rule if certified.
13. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P. No. 1187/2001 and W.P. No. 1188/2001.