IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATnSGARH PETITIONER RESPONDENTS A// 0'yW ,.••' X •/"'.te'D'P'" y >^"s.L'y~ /^\'7 ./" ^iLV '"^"^ ^- <!?^ ^ WRIT PETITION No. //^T /2006 Surendra Kumari Sehgal W/o Sat Pal Sehgal, D/o Hardev Marwah aged about - 62 years, R/o Panjabi Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Raipur Development Authority Through - Its Chairman, Near Shastri Chowk, Bajrang Mandir, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Rahul Chhabra S/o Unknown aged about - unknown, R/o Subhash Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Harpreet Singh S/o Unknown, aged about - unknown, R/o Telibandha, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4. Smt. Sheela Rastogi W/o - unknown, aged about - unknown, C/o Sh. B.L. Bani, R/o E-21 Shailendra Nagar,, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OP JUDICA.TURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sin^le Bench: Hon'ble Sh»iSatish K. Aguihotri, J. W.P.No. 1140 OF 2006 Petitioner : Surendra Kumari. Sehgal Versus Respondents : Raipur Development Authority & Others Shri P.K. Patel, counsel fi>r fhe petitioner. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior counsel with Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel for the respondent No. 1. Shri Vimlesh Bajpyee, coiuiscl for fhe respoudent No.2. Shri R. Pradhan., counsel for fhe respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (27ta July, 20061 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has chaUenged the Sale-deed dated 30th October, 1985, executed between. the petitioner fhrough Chief Executive Officer and Smt. Sheela R^togi. Accordiag to the petitioner, the petitioner caine to know for fhe first tune wh.cn she inade aa application. for diversion and got a letter on 25.4.1997 (Aimexure P-7) m response to her appUcation for diversion. Leamed counsel appearfug for the petitioner, submits that fhe respondcnt No.l Raipur Development Authority, has ta-ansferred the laud wifhout her pemussion, whea she is ttie laad holder ofthe propcrty in question. The petitioner has filed this petition, after a lapse of 21 years. The case invotves disputed question of facts with regard to titte, ~\ •N c-p"<•<' ownership of the tand and the same cannot be decided without | examining the evidences and documents etc. 4. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot decide the disputed questions of facts. 5. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, prays for grant of liberty to move the Civil Court for appropriate relief. In that event, the Court will consider the case on merit and in accordance with law. _ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge