WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2482 of 2011 ‘ hankarlal Sahu ‘ VERSUS I S ¥ RESPONDENTS State of Chhkawsgarh & Othera WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 2A3 of 2011 .gr PETITIONER PETITIOERS Umenda Bai iGiri a Another I I I RESPONDENTs state of ohhfamsgam & Others WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2484 al 2011 I PETITIONER VERSUS Shiv Kumar Pandey I VERsus RESPONDENTS PETITIONER VES . RESPONDE ‘ Statevof Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgam ‘8: Other WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2485 of 2011 PETI'I'JQNE Ramhari Pane‘y ERSS v ESPGNDENTS sate of Qhh‘attisgarh & Gthers ~ WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2486 cf 2011 ETITIONER Bharat Lal Ghouhan ‘ - VEUS RS Stata' of Chhattisgarh & Omers ‘WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2487 of 211 9 Ravi Pandey R8U NTS : WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2488 of 2611 . PETITIONER Ram Sanhi Vera m VERSUS 31am of hhattisgarh & Others C R$ ESPONDENT ' N s I. R d VU R P . WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2489 af 2011 I EETITIONER Raghuraj Pandefy VERSus - I I I Sht of Chhams‘gath & Others WRIT PETITION (C) o. 2490 Iof 291-1 I x I I I RESPONDENTS PETITIONER‘ p N Sunil Soni VERSUS a sure of ohhattislgarh 8. other RESPONDENTS » - -WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2493 bf 2011 PS ETITIONER Sadanlal Dewangan & Anotharu 'ER$ VUS State o Chhattlsgarh Other f & s I RESPONDENTS PETITIONER' . ESPONDENTS I R Amit Pandey VRS8 EU Stae of Ghattisgarh & Gums t h T PETITION, (C) No. 2495 cf-2011 WRI PETITIONER "Ravindra Kumar Vaishnav ‘ VERSUS tate of hhauisar & Others S Cgh RE$PONDENTS ‘WRIT PEION (C No. 24 of 2011 ' TIT ) 96 Maan Dewangan d PETITIONER Vs ERsu Stata of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS - WRIT PETITION (C) No. 2497 of 201 1 PETITIONER ‘ Bhagwat Prasad Gupta VERSUS sate of Ghhattisgarh & Others t RESPONDENT§ s ’RIT PEITIO (C) No. 2 W TN 494 of 2011 PETITIONER 3 i WRIT PETITIGN (C) No. 2498 201 T Ram Ashraya Gupta 1r, VERSUS ‘ $tate of ChhattiwEath & Othel's AND RESPONDENTS PETITIONER WRIT PETmON (c) Nd. 2499 *or 2011 V § Shrikant Vaishnav VERSUS , Smte of Ghhauisgarh & Whats RESPONDENTS WRIT FETlTiGN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CCBNSTWUTION OF lNDiA ' ¥ SB Hon'ble ShrtSatIsh K Agmhotrl. J. 3 resent: fr ' Shn Rajeev Shrivestava and Shh Malay $hrwestavo, Advocates ‘ for the petitioners Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Dépuw Advocate General for the sate, ‘ ORDER £ORAL} ' (Passed onus“ day of May, 201 1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the- The petitioners are the owners and possessors of the iand m dispute Chief Municipal Gmcer Nagar Panchayat Maihar, District-anew! has . Issued notices to the petitioners to remove the structure constructed over the Iand in dispute on or before 11/05/2011 mllng whroh the same shall be demoiished E - Be that as It may, the law in this respect is well settled that ifthere is any r V dis‘putawith regard to title, the High Court is not appropriate forum. The petitioners have to take recourse to competent Civil Court. (See: Shelini. ShyamShetty. andAnother m Rajendra .ShankarPatil’). ‘- At‘this juncture, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners preys for .,, interim protection on the ground that it will take some time to approach : the Civil Court. 1 (2010) a soc (€29 - " iii” P 1 J ‘ .ln view of foregoing and having regard to the I facts situation of toe om; " no coercive steps pursuant to the impugned hoticos may be mkon by tha ‘ . respondent authorities for a period of one month from today. The petitioners are at iiberty to take recourse to appropriate forum as i provided under the provisions of Iaw. in trio meantime, the petitioners u may fiie reply to the show cause notice aiso.§ The observations, if any, made hereinaboveL, shalt not come in the way of the Civil Court white considering the respective cases of the petitioners, if so fried. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of. i i ‘ Sd/- “g‘ ‘ Satish K.Agnihotri i i i Judge l _*.,‘. :K. {VI—m