1. Gunnukh Das, Son ofTrilok Chand, aged about 45 years 2. Mohd. Jaliid, son of Mohd. Shafi, aged about 30 vears 3. Saifuddin, son'of Gulain Abbass, aged about 30 years 4. Fazal Abbas, son of Jultekai', aged about 35 years 5. Krishna Kiunar, son of Shaduram, aged about 40 years 6. Jouhar Ali, son of Iradad AU, aged about 30 years 7. Ganesh Prasad Pandey, son of Purushottam Paiidey, aged about 40 vears 8, Izrail Solanlq', son of Shri Ramzan Solanlsy, aged about 32 years 9. Ranizaa Khaa, son of Didar Khaa, aged about 38 years 10. Mahamuda Bano, soii of Qyam. AM, aged about 35 years 11. Yogesh Sahu, son of Shambu Sahu, aged about 28 years Raiesh Rator, son of Mohaxi Lal Ratoi-e, aged about 30 years Abdul Muieeb, son of Mohainmad Hussam., aged about 28 years AU are R/o. Rajkuiaar College Ward, G.E. Road Ashram, Opp, Vandana Auto, Raipur (CG) 12. 13. Vs. 1. 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, tlirough tlie CoUector, Raipur The Nazul Otficer, Collectorate, Raipur Raipnr Municipal Corporation, A body of Corporate Constituted under fhe Relevaiit Provisions of M.P. Municipal Coi-poration Act, ssB^EEii'awsflffiSBfam ^@^c -i 2. 1956 Haviag its Ofilce at Malviva Road, Raipur Througb the COTT!missioner of Raipur The Coinnussioner, Raipur Muiucipal Corporation, Malviya Road, Raipur (SSsHon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aaalliotri. J.1 Sbri B.P.Sharma, counsel for fhe petitioner. Snri S.K.Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 652. • Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saiigeeta Mishra, counsel for fhe respondent No.3. (Passed oa this 17th day of Movember 2007) Leamed counsel appeanug for ftie petitioners' subinits that tiie petitioners are siuall shopkeepers aad were caiTyiag on fheir business at various places iu the city of Raipur. They were graiited teiaporary lease tbr the shops. Now the respondents ai-e tryiag to dispossess fhe petitioners froiu theh- sinaU. shops/ Guintees wifhout aiibrdiag aiiy opportuiiily ofhearing. In fhis petition, the petitiouers have prayed for a direction to restram. fhe State/Aufliorities Ironi deDioUsbing Uie structure. The petitioners have also prayed that the respondeut/Aufhorities be directed to consider fhe apptications of tlie petitioners for renewal of tlieir lease. Tbis Court, on 6.5.2004 has passed fhe foUowing order : "Having considered fhe facts and circuinstaiices of the case aiid niaterial on record, it is directed that if tlie petitioners are in possession of the shops in. question, fhey shall not be dispossessed till fhe next date of heanng subject to fumishing a personal boad -3 and solvent security of Rs. 5000/ - each to fhe satisfaction of Nazul Officer." 4. Ssxi S.K.Mishra, learaed Paael Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 & 2 aad Shri H.B.Agrawal, leamed Senior Counsel, appearuag for fhe respondent No.3, fairly sublllit tliat uo stfps for ctemolition of the structure or dispossession of the petitioners froiu the shops/lands ia question sball be takeu before aflbrdiilg proper opportuniTy of hearmg to the petitioners, in accordance with law aad coinpliaace of fhe impugned orders shall not be insisted upoa. 5. Ill view of tlie tbregoing, nothing survives in fhe laatter. Accordmgly, fb.is petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge