pE'n'no»;BR: RESPONDENTS .'/^ 1&.;::.;^ ^^y/' ^M^^ ^iW' iW ®.:!i'a.8i;'®Bi%lt ^&-^ CT feH!:NH^^URT@FCHMAT1^Q»KHMBlI^SI^ WRIT PETITIO (C(,N6.^:?0.::,OF'^ Murari .Lal.; Chandrakar, iS/o Eafe Shri . Kdrblahara Ram: Chandpafcar, agedt about S'SJ years^ ? ?R/p Aranig, District ^.,/ Raipur (CG). , | . . • Versus ' , 1. State of CUhattisgarh, ; ; Through. the Secretary, | Department, of. Urban 1 DeveloprHent, D.K.S. Buildii-ig, : Mantralaya, Raipur, (GG). 2. CollectQT,:Raipur (pG). , 3. Tahsildar, Arang, District • ;Raipur(CG). ,- 1 4. Nagar Panchayat, Ararig, District Raipyr (CG), thrciugh tUe Chief Municipal Officer.': .: 5. 6. CUie'f ^Muntcipal Officer, Na^ai- SanchaysLt, Araiig, DistriGt ;RaipurF©). . Ram:esh;; Kumar ChaiidraKar, S/Q Late Shri Korbahara ;Ram Chaiidrakar, R/b Arang, DistrictRaipur (CG). ' • ^tTNDtai •::':;^^. eONSTITUTtON QF INDIA '^y ^ • •^>].. % '.:"^^- ^s^^f ^ ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C) 870 of 2010 ; Murari La! Chandrakar VERSUS RESPONDENTS ; State of Chhattlsgarh & Others WRIT P_ETITION_UNDER ARTICLE2260F_THE CONST'TUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish^K. Acinihpli-i, J. Present: Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 & 5. Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.6. ORDER(QRAL1 (Passed on 30th day of August, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction that the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Arang, should handover the seized articles to the petitioner in respe-ct of shops/godown Nos.4 & 5 situated at Public Library Shopping Complex, Nagar Panchayat, Arang. 3. The petitioner claims a relief on the basis of certificate dated 17/01/200.3 (Annexure P/2) issued by the Chief Municipa! Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Arang. Hovvever, on the contrary, I in the lease deed, the shop No.4 was allotted to the respondent No.6. It is further found that the petitioner has been issued notices by Nagar Panchayat, Arang on 17/03/2009, 22/01/20Q9 and 27/12/2008 (Annexure R/2) to vacate the premises of shop No.4, as the same was never allotted to him, but under lease agreement it was allotted to the respondent No.6. ;I';'r ^".^'a- 6. Gowri It is a case of the respondents that the reliance of the petitioner on the certificate dated 17/01/2003 is also bogus, as the petitioner was never granted any permission or any lease in respect of shop No.4. Be that as it may, it appears that disputed question of facts are involved in the present case. Thus, having regard to the fact situation of the case, the respondent Nagar Panchayat i.e. respondents No.4 & 5 are directed to look into the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with the records maintained by them and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petitlon stands disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge