£; Ivi.i3.No.;/é__ IHHIH IIHIHIHMIIHHIIII z l Bhupiner Sing’h Garewa 2.Rajwan't Singh Garewa 3. Sarab ee+ Singh Gangewal 4.3alvinder Singh Garewal All Sons of Ea+e Shri Ca¢».sinra+ ingh R/O Jorapara, Raipu V ’E R S U S 9 .191. PETiTmN Ej§ gazvws Egw z . "‘+,a+e of Madhya Prades +hmugh Secre+ary,DePar+men+ of Urban Ceiling, Valla‘bh Bhawa Bhopal. 2 Compe+en+ Au+ horiw, Nagar ‘Bh‘om eéma, Collec+ora+e, p ETTTKQh UI"DFR ARTICLE 226UPON 27 CL)I\STITUTIOI\ OF INDEA 08‘ EAFORLEMM OF FUND TL RIT 0t BEARINJ AND Or RDE5EHI‘Y UNDER AKIICL* 14 M‘D O‘ 1& COkSTIIUTICh OF INDI ‘R 2 m-uu-umm—w wax .—~ m-a w—n. 5 ” NA GF P @ AQ. v i iiL O \ ii THHIGICwR’ d l/ l j p;h S r l h n‘ I : di S Raiur. m ’ , f/2/ m §qf$ 3mmW (WW) mmgrm anéémféwi‘ x. ‘ .aamRWwéal - > r mamama'wmn $ was-1 A \ 23-05-2005 Shri, B.P. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Parag Kotecha, P.L., ftkr the State. It is stated that inadverte ntly the annexures have not been properly-annexed. ‘ Counsel for the petitioners sought permission for arranging the annexures properly. Permission granted. The an'nexures-may be properly erranged. Case is passed over. ‘ _ ’Igaf/ ' \ Fakhrudéigwr Later on: fl ‘ i r Judge j E ’ Shn' B.P. Shama for the petitioners. i WW1 L Shn‘ Pamg Kotccha, P.L., for the State. if ‘ ‘ '7‘; Heard. I By this petition, Constimtion of ' India, the proceedings in Ceiling Case er Article 226/227 of the etitionem have challenged the g o.223l79-80 of the Competent Authority, Nagar Bhoomi See a, Collec’torate, Raipur. petitionexe contended that the Singh was an Army omcer and after retirement nom Army hi family decided to settle at Raipur in the name of the father. It is area was shown tesewed for Learned counsel for petitioners’ father Capt. and they purchased the prop further contended that th residential purpose but th was no demarcation of these- lands and the recording w s oniy' on paper. lt was the SP/FS/L , "d N t S' e e e Mm m $m$ hi8 WWW g/ 111200 mam (W) ‘ mmmmsr - k2K agricultural land. The contem the proceedings were not maim Learned counsel for the sheets of the Gourt of Com] mama-mm aawsm ion is that in Urban Ceiling Act, ainable. peu'tioners 'refermd to the order Jctent Authority, Nagar Bhoomi u p d a a Seema. He pomted out that 24/5] 1980, the holder had also given the statement on 11]8/ 1987 the Court noted > the objection and as the time s sustainable and the notice w that the objections were not opportunity of hearing was giv after the death of the holder heard. The prayer is made to remanded back and the petitio of healing. On perusal of the order Authority, it appears that on holder Simrat Singh had hled elapsed the objection Was n icultural holder was present and the lawyers were on strike, th‘e On 11/4/ 1988, present pe1 appeared and it was writtei v Presiding Ohice‘r was not p1 son of the deceased holder is 20/4] 1988 shows that the heets of the Court of Competent 1/8/ 1987 the Court noted that objection and as the time has sustainable and the notice was sent. On‘ 22/ 2/ 1988, the agr refore, the case was adjourned. itioner no.1 Bhupendra Singh 1 in the order sheet that the The order sheet dated SP; rsuant to the notice issued on peared on 4/6/ 1980 and ha t date. It is submitted that on t holder Siinrat Singh had tiled elapsed the objection was not It is further submitted at all considered and even no n at all. It is also submitted that legal’heirs ought to have been eh‘ect that the matter may be ers may be given an opportunity s sent. esent. o e e e plesent and the Présiding 0&cer was out. On 25/5/ 1988, it was informed that the holder has died and Bhupendra Singh ‘. had intimated. The order sheets also show that no opportunity of hearing The ' Court belcw should have cons1de1ed the objections as raised 1n the ap ‘cation Annexure P/ 2 ‘ Under the Circumstance , 1n the opnnon of this Court, it is dilected that the matter be anded back to the court below sly as possible after giving an I was g1ven ‘ u and it be decided as exped opponumty of heanng to the With the aforesaid ob ervations this petition stands disposed of. H]- utioners Certihed copy as per rul s. Fakhtudd'm " Judge ”LiLaitmuwomnhm.iw . _ SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 m i