^ E!tt« IN THE HI6H COURT OF JU&ICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL N0. //<'—^2009ONsfon B8i APPELLANT (Petitioner) ^^-' fc..1(::"c?-'%\.--" ^ ^ •^»- .^x^ c^c^ ..••^c'%>;'' Jeev Rakhan Pansari, son of Shri Jageshwar Prasad Pansari, aged 45 years, Proprietor M/s Avi Pan <& Seneral Stores, Station Road, Raipur, resident of Lily Chowk, Raipur. K^ Vs. RESPONbENTS 1. The Corporation, through Municipal Raipur the ^sgss^ ^;r^ "S\o"ro^^Jl. Commissioner, Muriicipal Corporation, Malviya Chowk, Raipur. 2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C6) WRIT APPEAL UNbER SECTION 2 (11 OF THE CHHATTIS6ARH HI6H COURT (APPEAL TO &IVISION ^•K HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR D. B: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Ouddusi. Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, WritADpeal No.116/2009 M^ Appellant Respondents ; 3eev Rakhan Pansari Vs. : State of Chhattisgarh and another Writ Appeal No.125/2009 Appellant Resoondents : Ku. Urvashi Agrawal Vs. ; State of Chhattlsgarh and others Writ Aopeal No.13272009 Appellant Respondenls Purushottam Sarin Vs. State of Chhattlsgarh and others Writ Appeal No.240/2009 AppellantS Resoondents Dinesh Kumar and Gangumal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others ^-< Appearance: Ms. Priyanka Lal counset for the Appellants 'm W.A.NOS., 116/2009, 125/2009 & 132/2009. Mr. Sushobhit Singh, counsel for the appellant In W.A.No.240/2009. Mr. Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate/Dy. Advocate Generat for the State. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, Mr. Kashif Sh'akeel and Mr. Saurabh Sharma, counsel for the Munidpal Corporation, Raipur. J.i!U ,l. ...l.,.. l.. W.i T,. ;-'-4"%, •l^':-^?-:-. •: .: ft^y ^> Writ Aopeals under Section 2 f11 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court fAppeal to Division Benchl Act, 2006 ORAL OIIDER (26.04.2010) Per I.M. OUDDUSI, J Heard. 2. These writ appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1086/2009, 1053/2009, 1035/2009 & 1574/2009 dismissing the writ petitions. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ appellants were allotted lands between Railway Station and Telghaninaka and it cannot be said that the allotment was not legal as it was by the Munidpal Corporation, Raipur. Some were granted possesslon and some were granted lease. Any how the occupation of the land/shops were with due permission. After exptry of the lease, the same was not extended. However, they remalned in possession between 1992 and 1994. The Municipal Corporation occupied the shops and dismantled the same recently. Thus, all of a sudden, they became without any source of Income as their possession was snatched by dismantling the shops. 4. We may not further go into facts as after dismissal of the writ petitions, when these writ appeals were filed, this Court desired vide order dated 09.04.2010 that better course would be to allot some suitable alternative lands under rehabilitation scheme to these wrlt appellants. On this, the Municlpal Corporation, Raipur, has come forward with'a proposal vide Memo dated 24.04.2010 that writ appellant Purushottam Sharin u •y will be allotted shop no.39 measuring 10' x S' (80 sq. ft.) beneath the over-bridge at Telghani Naka, Ramnagar, Ralpur. Similarly, appellants Ku. Urvashl Agrawal will be allotted shop no.40, Jeevrakhan Pansari will be allotted shop no.41, Dinesh Kumar will be allotted shop no.42 and Gangumal wlll be allotted shop no.43, all of same size in the same locality. 5. In view of the above, we dispose of these appeals with the directlon that the proposal made by the Munidpal Corporation, Raipur, be materialized as earty as possible. However, in case any grievance survives, the wrtt appeltants may approach the concerned authority by making representation and if such a representation Is made, the same may also be considered sympathetically. 6. With the aforesaid dlrection, the order passed by the learned slngle judge stands modifled to the extent Indicated above in respect of the writ appellants only. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao -f