^^ .3 IN THE MZGH COURT OF jyDICATURE AT BSLASPURi CHHATTISGMiH W.P. N0. (^FOF 2004 Petitloner ..--^/ Smfc Sarita Goyai Aged about 39 years, W/o Shri l---"','^^ Arun Kumar Goyai, R/I Dungaji ^2?:*>\\V^^^^' /CoSony, Raipur, Ta'h. & Distt o. •-••^•^C-•• ^ Raipur'(Chhattisgarh) :^>'€^^ ?,<>'°^ 'A^ "" Respondents Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Deptt. of Housing and Environment, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur 2. The Coliector, Raipur/ Distt Raipur k- •^ ^"\ r:i; !'^' 3. The Director, Town &. Country PJanning, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (Chhattssgarh) 4. The Joint Doirector, Town and ^ • Country Planning^ Raipur^ Dlstt Raipur (Chhattisgarh) \ 5. The Municipa} Corporation through its ^^ Commissioner, Corporate building, Raipur/ Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITSON UNDERATRTICLE 2J6/227 OF THE SONSTSTVTSON OF 2NDIA FOR SSSUANCE OF WRXT /WRITS, DIRE€TION/DIRE€TIONSETC. HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR (^ PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION No. 1768 of2004 Smt. Sarita Goval. VERSU8 State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTION OFINDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri.J. Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocte General forthe State/ Respondent No. 1 to 4. Shn H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 5. ORDER (Passed on 28th day ofNovember, 2011) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for fhe State/respondent No. 1 to 4 submits fhat by virtue ofinterim order dated 28.06.2004 passed by this Court, the petitioner has continued in his possession till date, thus, without adjudicating the case on merit fhe State may be permitted to issue jfresh notice to the owner of the property in dispute under section 37 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, and thereafter, after hearing the petitioner in response to the notice, appropriate orders shall be issued by the respondent aufhorities. 2. Ln view ofthe above facts and circumstances ofthis case., when it appears fhat law could not take ite own course for a long time, submission ofleamed Deputy Advocate G^neral is taken on reeord and fhe petition is disposed ofwith a direction fhat the authorities shall issue appropriate notice in accwdance with the provisions of section 37 of the Act, 1973 and after having afforded aii i;i»M ^ 'f'y 4. opportunity of hearing to the owner of the property, within the time specified m section 37 of the Act, 1973 itself, appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law on its own merits. Needless to mention fhat no adverse order against the petitioner shall be passed without complying with the provisions of section 37 ofthe Act 1973, in respect offhe matter in dispute. Wifh the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit