w;n; r % : HK3HCOURT OF.CHHAm^ARttATBlLASPUR SinateBench : Hon'ble Shri H.L. Dattu. C.J. Writ PetiUon No.2379 ofZCUI Petjtioners Kliiit Respondents 1. Shankar LalS/o Baisakhu Ram Aged about27 yeare 2. Dular Singh S/o Roop Singh, Verma, Aged about 41 yeara ^ 3. Dilip KumarS/o Sundaru Kewat Aged about 28 years 4. Madan son of Manrakhan Chauhan, Aged about 35 yeare All residentsofvillageKura, Block Nawagarh, Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) yersus •;' 1. Gram Panchayat, Kura, BfockNawagarh,'Tah. Nawagarh, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Through: Sarpanch 2. Collector, Durg (C.G.) 3. CommissiQner.Raipur Diwsion, Raipyr(aG.) . Present ; Dr.,N.K. Shutda, Sr. Advooate with Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, eounselforthe petitioners. Sliri SuriilSahu, opunsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advooate for the State/respondents No. 2 & 3. ORA1.0RDER (Passedon2SltI April, 2007) The petitioners are residents ofvillgge Kura, Tahsil Nawagarh,. District Durg. The respondent No.1 Gram Panchayat had granted three pondsknown as (i) Devaraha Pond (ii) Buddhu Pond and (iii) Paunsari Rasta Pond, on lease for a perioct of ten yeara oommencing from 15-06- 1999, to the petitioners. During the ourrency of lease period, the :K^i. ' i ' respondent No.1 Gram Panchayat cancelled the lease. Aggrieved bythis /s ^- action of the Gram Panchayat the petitioners are before me in this writ |pi<4J. petition undeTArticles 226/227 ofthe Gonstitution of India. f (2) Learned oounsel appearing for the petitioners woyld submit that the Gram Panchayat without issuing any show cause notice to the petitionere, has cancetled the lease granted to the petitioners whioh is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Rutes of naturat justice. The respondents have filed their returns contending that show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners but they have refused to recehre the same. (3) After cancellation of the lease, the Gram Panohayat has not leased the said ponds to any thiid party. Therefore, no third party interest is created as on today. (4) The assertion is made that no notice was issued to the petitionere. The said assertton is disputed bythe respondents by filing their counter. These are the disputed facts whioh oannot be sorted out in a petition under Artides 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in my opinion if a direction i& issued to the Gram Ranchayat to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitionere and a further direction is issued to the petitionere to reoeiye the same and file their reply, if any and .^6 further direction is issued to the Gram Panchayat to pass an appropriate order,no prejudice would be caused to any party. Acoordingly, the foitowfng :- ORDER 1. The petitionis disposed'Qf. 2. A direction is Issued to the Gram Panchayat to issue a fresh / show oause notice to the petitionere asking them to show cause why the lease granted to them earlier should not be cancelled. 3 The petitionerashall receive theshow cause notice issued by the Gram Panchayat and file their reply, if any. The Gram Panchayat shalt consider the reply that may be filed by the petitioners, in aocordance with law and issue an appropriate endoreemert to the petitjoners. Allothercontentionsofthepartiesare leftopen. Ordered aocordingly. Sdf- • ChiefJustice i-:: .y