PANKAJ SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V.R. Krishna Iyer, J, in the matter of Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs. Shri Vardichan and others, 1980 4 SCC 162 speaking for the Supreme Court said as under:-

(2.) The above-stated statement of law aptly and squarely applies to the facts of the present case, which are as under:

(3.) Upon being noticed, the State Government and Municipal Council, Mahasamund have filed separate, but common return stating inter-alia that it is regular work of the Municipal Council to clean drainage and also to remove the encroachment from government land, so that traffic of the city should be smooth and for that purpose initially notices were issued and circulated and thereafter the Municipal Council has initiated action for removal of encroachment and on the direction of the Collector, encroachment beside the National Highway No.353 and State Highway has been removed by constituting a team and it is the Government scheme to clean the city as well as village under Swach Bharat Abhiyan and action was taken by the respondent authorities to clean the drainage system and remove the encroachment of the city. It has further been pleaded that action has been proposed and removal of encroachment has been completed and drain(s), if any, are not covered, it will be covered by respondent No.5/Municipal Council, Mahasamund. While replying to the relief of completion of restoration work and to cover up the drain by concrete slab, it has been pleaded that same will be restored and drain(s) will be covered very soon and they have already initiated proceedings for allocation of fund from the State Government. Municipal Council, Mahasamund has reiterated the stand taken by the State Government and both returns are supported by affidavit of Mr.Tamson Ratre, Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mahasamund.