BEFORE THE‘ HON’BLE HIGH COURT‘OF CHHATTISGAR AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION 1C) NO. ‘ {EZ/ [2011 (ff Madan Kumar, S/o. Late Shri BanarsirDas, Aged about 42 years, R/o. Patthalgoan, Lailunga, District, Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS PETITIONER 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Nagar Panchayat, Lailunga, District - Raigarh, (C.G.) /7 3. Collector, Raigarh(C.G. ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA LJARIIC. _m=nlo\ . H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PET!TION (C) NO. 7172 OF 2011 Madan Kumar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. RESPONDENTS Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State with Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. Shri C.P. Shrivastava, Chief Municipal Ofhcer, Nagar Panchayat, Lailunga, District Raigarh, is also present. ORDER (Passed on this 015‘ day.of December, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing with Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate, on instructions by the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Lailunga, who is present in the Court, submits that the impugned notice of demolition dated 25.11.2011, which without affording an opportunity of hearing, was issued for demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction, has been withdrawn by subsequent notice dated 26.1 1 .201 1. A copy of the said notice is taken on record. 3. In view of the above, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, the Nagar Panchayat will not take any action without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the person concerned. The Nagar Panchayat may also decide the question of authorized or unauthorized structure, as the same is in dispute, before passing the order, after considering the cases of the persons concerned. \ Sd/- Sati'sh K. Agnihotr Judge ashok H . i