^) c. ;!t.<S».£' . ^ -AQC' »^ IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR /2009 W.P.fCI N0. ^3S3 PETITIONER^' Smt. Gulaba Bai W/o Late Shri Gopal Ji Panda, Aged about - 75 years, R/o Station \c^"^^ ..- ^ Road, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ^^^y ^ RESPONDENTS 'f /' / VERSUS 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Raipur Municipal Corporation, Through ~ Its Commissioner, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) fc WRIT PETITION Um)BR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA 1)^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1974 OF 2009 PETITIONER Pannalal Pandya Versus RESPONDENTS State pf Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETIT10N (C) N0.1980 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Inderjeet Ghaj & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another RESPONDENTS PETITIONERS WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2352 OF 2009 Holaram & Another Versus RESPQNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETITIQN (C) NQ.2353 OF 2009 PETITIONER Smt. Gulaba Bai RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another And WRIT PETITION (0 N0.2354 OF 2009 Natthulal Pujari Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hpn'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha; Dy. Adv. General for the State. Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate for the respondent Municipal Corporation. 1. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 20th day ofAugust, 2010) At the very outset, Shri Otwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the facts and question of law involved in % ^^sw^^ c-^ .. % rl / .r.;.'-' •^.^"•/;' ^ the present batch of matters are the same, which was under consideration before the Division Bench of this Court \n Jeev Rakhan Pansari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another1 and other connected matters. Learned counsel further submits that the present petitions may be disposed of in the same terms. Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing for the State and Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal Corporation, have no objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and further submit that the case of the petitioners would be considered and dealtwith in the sameterms ofdecision ofthe Division Bench ofthis Court rendered in Jeev Rakhan Pansar7(supra). In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothjng survives in these petitions for adjudication. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. However, it is made clear that if some information is required from the petitioners by the respondents, the petitioners have to produce the same beforethe authoritiesconcerned. _ „—- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 W.A.No.116 of 2009 (decided on 26-4-2010)