a9 ébA/ 9 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR‘ WRIT PETITION No.7.l§‘é of 2004 f PETITIONERS: 1. Smt. Dasari Bai, Wife of Shri Mukund Lal, aged about 53 years. 2. Smt. Rajrani, Wife of Late R.K. Mishra, Aged about ~60 years. 3. Shivendra, son of Rajrani, aged about 30 years. 4. Sushil, Son of Shri ‘x‘ Santram, aged about 30 years. Santosh Mishra, son of Shri Rajnarayan Mishra, Aged about 32 years. Shivmurat Tiwari, son of Shri Rajbali Tiwari, aged about 35 years. 7. K.S. Tripathi, son of Shri G.Nath Tripathi, aged about 61 years. Sushil Kumar, son of Shri Sant Ram, aged 30 years. Dinesh Tripathi',‘ son of Shri K.S. Tripathi, about 27 years. All Residents of Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur ”1 w aged Mathpuraina, Versus RESPONDENTS: State of Chhattisgarh, Trough: The Secretary, / Ministry of Urban ' D.K. S. Building, Mantralaya, *Raipur. 2. The Tehsildar, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226‘)¢& 227 OF THE‘CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTORARI AND /OR ORDER(S) AND /OR DIRECTION§S§ IN THE NATURE OF WRITS Development, eIf ,n h l w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon’ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishm Writ Petition N0. 756/2004 PETITIONERS. Smt. Dasari Bai and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. Appearance: Shri Ajay Singh, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents. RESPONDENTS VVRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (4.10.2010) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are lease holders under Rajiv Gandhi Ashraya Yojna, having been granted lease in 1998 and since then they are in possession of the disputed lands and have further erected construction thereon. The respondent No.1 Without affording an opportunity of hearing by issuing show cause notice had taken steps to demolish the structure standing on the said lands. (2) This court on 22/04/2004 after hearing both the parties protected the petitioners in the following terms: \f/ . “Till the next date of hearing, purely as an interim measure, it \ r w; is directed that the petitioners, if not dispossessed, shall not be ' dispossessed from the land in dispute, subject to furnishing W3 personal bond and surety of Rs.10,000/- and undertaking that the property shall be kept as it is.” The above interim order was made absolute on 17/1 0/2008. (4) Counsel for the petitioners has relied on the interim order passed by this court in WP. N0. 535/2001 (Annexure P—5). The said writ petition has been disposed of by this court vide order dated (3) 16/1 1/2007. (5) on the lands in question shall be taken after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law. The instant petition is thus disposed of with the above (6) observation. Sdl- _ Prashant Kumar Mlshra Judge W