H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.fCTNo. 279 Qf 2007 Petitionsre 1. Riyaz Khan, S/o Shri Shammi USSa Khan, Aged about 40 years, Ward Member of Gurunanak Ward, R/o Bhagat Sjngh Ward, Bhatapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Adarsh Kumar Jain, S/o Late Shri Premraj Jain, Aged about 40 years, R/o Gandhi Mandir Ward, Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Stete of ChhatUsgarh, Through- Secretar/, Nagariya & Prasashan Vibhag Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2., Joint Director, Department of Town and Country Planning District Office, Raipur 3. Nagar Paiika Parishad Through : Chief Municipal Corporation Bhatepara District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Ravi Shankar Gautam S/o Late Shr! H. S. Gautam, Aged about 45 years R/o Gandhi Mandir Ward Bhatapara Police Station Bhatapara, District- Raipur 5. Smt Samta Gautam W/o Ravi Shankar Gautam Aged about 42 yeare R/o Gandhi MandirWard Bhatapara Police StaUon Bhatapars Disfrict- Raipur (C.G.) WRST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22S OF THE COSTITUTiON OF JNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Y. C. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Sharma, Pane! Lawyer for the respondsnts No. 1 and 2, Shri SudhirAgarwal, Advocate forthe respondent No. 3. Shri Sanjay K. Agar,va!, Advocate for the rsspondents No. 4 and 5. ORALORDER (Passed on this 26"'day of November, 2007) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for She rsspondent No.S/Nagar Paiika Parishad, Bhatapara submite ttat ttie respondent No.3 has granfed permission So the respondents No. 4 and 5 te rsise construction on the R~««« //! ^^^^^i^^^^^^^^^?^^^!^^^^^^^ property in dispute bearing P!ot No, 2336 admeasuring 6737 square feet, situatsd at Gandhi Mandir Ward (Village Hathani PaSwari Halka No.6), Bhatapara, for residential purpose. He further submite that there is n6 psrmission to raise constroction of the buiiding for commerciai purpose. in the event, the respondents No. 4 and 5 construct the buiiding for commerciai purpose, that •Aiil not be ailowed to be done by the respondent No.3 wittout permission. 2. !n view of Shs categorical statement made on behalf of the respondent No.3, nothing survives in this peSition. 3. The peHion stands disposed of finalty. No order asto costs. 4. The interim order granted on 20.2.2007 stands discharged. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge F- -—-...-^' L-iL