seni ;ri; ti u <^7 ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (C| N0. OF 2011 PETITIONERS ^4^ ^yy/ \^7/ .4$^<^ ^y^' ^/£/'/^ y^'/b^ ^y/^~ 'f J>' ^'fe5:^^.-^ '^a^LLlS.^-'"' / 1. Mohd. Shabbir S/o Shri Mohd. Mahood, aged about 52 years, Occupation - Betel Shop. 2. Mohd. Islam S/o Shri Mohd. Kaimuddin, aged about 52 years, Occupation- Betel Shop. -3. Sarju Gupta S/o Shri Ramchandra Gupta, aged about 47 years, Occupation - Small Hotel. 4. Chattu S/o Jaggu Pal, aged about 54 years, Occupation - Small Hotel. 5. Bholu Singh S/o Shri Uday Singh, aged about 42 years, occupation General Store Shop. 6. Mohd. Mustaq S/o Mohd. Jamiluddin, aged about 42 years, Occupation - Stationary Shop. 7. Ganesh Pal S/o Shri Rajdev Pal, aged about 42 years, Occupation - Small Hotel. 8. Mohd. Amir S/o Mohd. Sajjad, ageda-bout 52 years, Occupation - Small Hotel. RESPONDENTS ^ 9. Mohd. Nasim S/o Mohd. Hasim, aged about 52 years, Occupation - Shoe shop. 10 Mohd. Rabbani S/o Mohd. Jabbar, aged about 57 years, Occupation Shoe shop. 11 Irshad S/o Liyakat, aged about 41 years, Occupation Egg Shop. All R/o Village Kusmi, Police Station 8s Tahsil Kusnii, District Surguj-a (C.G.). VERSUS .1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 3. Nagar Panchayat- Kusmi, Through Chief Municipal Offlcer, Nagar Panchayat- Kusmi, District Surguja (C.G-). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^^r*^PR*n JI. 7 ••"• ^' :^ -^ /-ff.S?'"' &. 'l '<S!«»^'B"''3ii vt. . / tl t!^-'"^' .X '~^s61 .\' ^^ PETmQNERS RESPONDENTS HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUF WRIT PETITION (O N0. 6876 OF 2011 Mohd. Shabbir & Othere Versus The State ofChhattisgarh & Othere (Writ Petition under Ai tide 226of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sudeep Agravrai, Advocate for the petitionera. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. ORDER (Passed cn this 21 day of November, 2011) 1. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearina for the petitioners submits that in respect of the ownership of the land in dispute, the Cml Court by order dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure P-3) heldthat the Civil Court has no jurisdiclion to decide the dispute involved in the case. Shri Agrawal further submits Ihat without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitionere, the authorities are proceeding to demolish the strueture in questiqn. 2. On query asto what is the basis, which leads to the conolusion that the structure in question is beina demolished, Shri Agrawal is unable to point out any documents, any certificate or notice, wherein, il has been decided to demolish the structure and, as such, on the basis of apprehension, no ordercan be passed, as in normal circumstances, no demolition can take place without following due process of law and without affording proper opportunity of hearing. 3; Accordingly, the petitionis premature and is dismissed. Sd/- gA.nSH K. ANGNIHOM Judge ashok