HIGa HCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Ci No. 6481 of 2008 Vijay Laxmi Devi Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncement of the judgment on 2.-9-2009 i Sd/— i 3Satish K. Agnihom Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 6481 of 2008 (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 'Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J Present: Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Shri K.A. Ansari, Sr. Advocate with Shri R.L. Bajpai, Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3. JUDGMENT (Passed on this; “A day of September, 2009) 1. Heard on l.A.No.4 i.e. application for withdrawal of the writ p etition. 2. The petitioner, by this petition, prays for issuance of appropriate writ to restrain the respondent authorities for acquisition of land bearing khasra No.76. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the owner of land bearing khasra No.77 admeasuring 15.30 acres situated at village Chhuiekhadan, District PETITIONER Vijay Laxmi Devi, W/o Late Shri Ritiupand Kishore Das, aged about 74 years, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri Devraj Kishore Das, Slo Ghanshyam Kishore Das, R/o Chhuiekhadan Palace, P.O. Chhuiekhadan, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Urban Administration & Deveiopment Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur(CG). 2. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Chhuiekhadan, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG). 3. President, Nagar Panchayat Chhuiekhadan, Dist. Rajnandgaon (CG). W7 Rajnandgaon. The Tahsildar, Chhuiekhaaan by order dated 29th August, 2008 (Annexure —/ P/2) directed for recording the name of the petitioner in the concerned revenue records with respect to land bearing khasra No.76 admeasuring 3.52 acres. Thereafter, on the 15‘“ October, 2008 the name of the petitioner was recorded in the aforesaid land, which is evident from 'Khasra Panchshala. The respondents No.2 & 3 purchased the Iand bearing khasra No.77 admeasuring 6000 sq.ft. from the petitioner on the 17‘“ August, 2007 (Annexure — P/4). The respondent authorities constructed shops on the aforesaid Iand and issued a notice in the newspaper on the 9th September, 2008 (Annexure — P/5) for selling of the shops through auction basis. 4. The petitioner raised an objection before the Revenue Authorities mentioning that the respondent authorities constructed the shop on her land and prays for demarcation. The Revenue Inspector in presence of the parties completed the demarcation proceedings of land bearing khasra Nos.76 & 77 and submitted the report before the Tahsildar, Chhuiekhadan stating that the respondent authorities constructed the shop on the land bearing khasra No.76, which has not been purchased by them from the petitioner. Demarcation report is Annexure — P/7. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.2 not to construct any shop/building on the land bearing khasra No.76. In spite of the aforesaid situation, the respondent authorities are doing the construction work on the land in question. Thus, this petition. 5.‘ Vide order dated 215‘ November, 2008, on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court by way of interim measure directed that no construction work shall be undertaken on the land bearing khasra No. 76 till the next date of hearing. The matter was listed thereafter on the 12““ February, 2009. The interim relief granted earlier came to an end, as the same was not extended on the next date of hearing i.ev on the 12th February, 2009 and 16‘“ July, 2009. On the 215k August, 2009, Shri Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, sought permission of this Court to withdraw this petition, wherein the petitioner has sought direction to restrain the respondent authorities for acquisition of land bearing Khasra No. 76. Opposing the prayer for withdrawal of writ petition made by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ansari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3 submits that on account of pendency of this writ petition, the Municipal Council has suffered huge loss, therefore, a cost of Rs. 5 Lakhs may be imposed. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The interim order dated 215‘ November, 2008 came to an end on the 12 th February, 2009 and thereafter, the respondent authorities had full liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Mere pendency of the writ petition has not caused any loss or damage to the respondent authorities. There is 'no reason not to allow the petitioner to withdraw this petition.‘ Accordingly, the objection of the respondents to withdraw this petition, is rejected. ln View of the above, the application is ordered as prayed for. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/— ‘Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \t H