PETITIONERS W.P.(C) No. ‘iWLm 1] R ESPONDENTS IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR /2011 Smt. Preetam Malik, Wd/o. Late Kuldeep‘ Malik, aged about 65 years, R/o. Sattipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Rohit Malik, S/o. Late Kuldeep Malik, aged about 36 years, R/o. Sattipara, Ambikapur; District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS , State of Chhattisgarh, Through — Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Town and Country Planning department through its Director, Town and country planning department Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C‘G.) Director, Town and Country Planning Department Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District — Surguja (C.G.) Municipal Corporation Ambiliapur, through — its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur (C.G.) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur (C.G.) Town & Country Planning Department, Regional Office, Ambikapur, through — Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District — Surguja (C.G.) Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3] 4] x 5] 6] 7] 8] / x 1] PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (S): -» As stated above in the cause title. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 222 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.7440 OF 2011 PETITIONERS Smt. Preetam Malik & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate forthe State. Shri Bhupendra'Singh, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6. RESPONDENTS O R D E R (Passed on this 9th day of December, 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsel for the'parties. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 & 6 submits that Section 305 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short “the Act, 1956”) aprovides for power to regulate line of buildings. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled to notice of removal of some portion or any part of a building before demolition takes place and the petitioner is further entitled to compensation. In the case on hand, the public notice has already been issued, however, the Corporation shall issue a notice to the petitioners also, before the provisions of Section 305 of'the Act, 1956 is invoked for the purpose of widening of public streets. 3. In view of foregoing, relief sought for by the petitioner by seeking a direction to the Collector and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, not to demolish‘the land in dispute does not survive, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, also. x 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. / _ Sd/_ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge , rr‘ i . , I l (/1