IN THE HIQH CQURT OF JUDICATURE CHEATTISGARH W w.P..No.__;7_gz1 mm Petitioners Raiv Sachdev S/o MLSad'ldev, aged wut 40 yams, R/oCivil Tim, Raipur ..(C_G) ‘ SnnJ-hnisaaSmmaWoRgmdm 311mm aged about 33 years, R’o Civil h'ne, Ra'pur— (CG) 2 Versus LR$p0ndents : I. If 1’3?“ 2 Raipur Déveaopmm Moray 1h1'ough its Chiaf Execuiive O$om GERoacL Raipm-(C.G.) Mun'dpa; (brpnran'on‘ Raipur throng: iis Cammissimeg Ivhkiya Road, Raipur -— (CG) x” . a 3.f “'SmteofCnhatusguhmgIme Sammy Urbm Adminsimtion and Developmmt EKS. Emwan, Raipur —(C.G.) " WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226327 OF THE - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA v/ XI—HC—22 1sg4z2002 the petitioner. Shri P. Diwakar for Shri Manindra Shrix rastava for respondents no. 1 and 2. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Ad Lte, for respondent no.3. Singhai, Dy. Govt. Advoce Heard. Shri Shrivastava su bmits that respondent No. 1 is no longer in existence and t1”,.e assets and liabilities of» respondent No. 1 have been transferred to respondent No. 2 by notification issued by 1 Shri Diwakar; learn produced the notice and 1)ointed out that the notice for demand ofjustice was seived on the respondent no. 1 on 17/1/2001. ioner submits that respondentNo. 1 ch letter is dated 3— 1 f~200 1 had issued letters, one s he petitioner was informed that the (Annexure A—3), whereby land in question comes :11. Advocate General, ‘with Miss x :53’X :he State Governement. ed counsel for the petitioner Counsel for the peti hjn Devendra Nagar Yojana‘and ' [new 't XI—HC—22 w m W WgmWz‘éa m z/ m mmmm WW $ wrqtvff W ft ’t‘gétm V 9&2 , the respondent No. 1 is mtereSted to solve the dispute / through amicable settlement, for which certain formalities are required. The petitioner submits that requisite documents like annexure A-4 etc. ha Je been submitted but no action has re X . yet been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent no.1 is now merged in Municipal Corporation and a the assets and liability of respondent no. 1 have been taken piursuant over by the Corporation to the notification issued by the State,'the Corporation may create third party interest jeopardizing the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had purchased the land through the sale—deed. Counselfor the respOndent on the other hand submits r; that the validity and effect of the sale-deed is to be considered and they are collecting tlie records. \ Havingconsidered the facts and circumstances of the ‘\\ case and the material available on record, it is directed that g: WWmW a detailed representation to the the petitioner shall make State Government through Secretary Within 15‘days from today along with all the docmnents and copy of this petition clearly specifying the open area still lying, which shall be decided by the State or such other authority 'hs directed by early as possible preferably Within the State Government as two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner shall be heard and the State may also hear such other person including thle department. Counsel for the peti’ :ioner submits that in the meantime third party interest may not be created on the open area. It is directed that nc on the open area in ques1 by the State/competent z passed, the petitioner me With the aforesaid < of. dig? Certified photocopy hthird party interest shall be created ion till the representation is decided tuthority. If any adverse order is y challenge the same afresh. iirections, this petition is disposed r Sdl- as per rules. " ‘ Fakhruddin / Judge l A new