@ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Sinula Bensh WRIT PETITION C NO. ‘ [2011 6”i, If W??? {Xi PETITIONER Vijay Kumar, S/o. Shri Banarsi Das, R/o. District, Aged aboutAg 59 years, a 7» Patthalgoan, Lailunga, Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ‘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.) ‘X‘x 3. Collector, Raigarh(C.G.) ”'INRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES of” 2E6 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA ; 1. pAp-nmn “no m. ...L K5 .\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO 7179 OF 2011 PETITIONER Vijay Kumar Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of lndia) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Saurabh Dangi‘ Advocate for the petitioner. @ Shri V.V.SVMurthy, Dy. Advocate General for the State with Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. Shri C.P. Shrivastava, Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Lailunga, District Raigarhgis also present. ORDER (Passed on this 015‘ day of December, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the ‘parties. 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affording an opportunity of hearing, was issued for demolition of the alleged unauthorized construction, has been withdrawn by subsequent notice dated 26.1 1 .201 1.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. ln view of the above, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. 4. 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/. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok