vr ,. H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (0 No. 6975 of 2007 Petittoners 2. Smt. fvleena Sharma, wsdow of Late Shivram Sharma, aged aboul 57 years, ressdsnt of Hospite! Chowk, Pratep Dev Ward, Pratapganjpara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Rohit Sharma, son of Late Lats Shivram Sharma, aged about 34 years, resident ofHospitel ChovA, Pratep De', Ward, Pratapganjpara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Versu; Resipondente 1. 2. 3. State of Chhaffisgarh, Shrougft the Secretary, Ministry of Town & Country Plannlng, Mantraiay, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. The Coilector, Disfrict Bastar. The Jagdaipur Municipai Corporation, Jagdalpur, through the Commissioner. WR!T PETiTION UNDER ARTSCLE 228 OF THE COSTITUTlON OF INDlA SB: Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agriihotri, J. Shri B. P. Sharma.Advocateforthepetitioners. Shri Vivek Sharma, Panet La'Aysr for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, AdvocaSe fcr {he respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 26th day of November, 2007) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petittoners submits tiiat the petittoners are owners of the !and situated over the plot numbers 73/1 and 74/2, tota! area 4476.K3 square feet, situated a{ Pratapganj Para, Jagdalpur, Bastar. He ferthsr refers to a report of the Revenue Officers, addressed to the N'azul Officer, Bastar, District Jagdaipur dated 26.3.2007 (Ar.nexure P/7) in support of his avermentthat the petitioners are owners of the iand in dispute. Learned counsel further submite that some portfon of ths construction of structurs and boundar/ v/a!( has been demoiished, wittiouf foito'Aing due procedure of iaw, ftus the petffioners are entMsd forcompensatiQn. ^- z 2. Learned counsel aoDearins for She resoondent* Mn t >.Municioai Corpcration submits that ths petltioners have consfructed the structure on ttie said piots, which as per ^nexure P/7 belong to the petitioners, v/iShout permission of the Municipa! CorporaSon. Some portion of the sfructure was demolished, which was constructed vrithout psrmission of the Municipa! CorporaSon, way back in the month of March, 2007. 3. !n view of ths foregoing this Court is not inclined to decide ttie disputed question of facte with regard to fte ov/nership and iiiegsl/legal construction of the buiiding. Be Shat as it may, in the event it is found that She consfruction was made due on the plots of the ov/nsrship of the petitionere after obtaining permissten, the respondent No.3 may consider in accordance wjth law for grant of compensation, as eariy as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. Subsequent deinojition, if proposed or intended by the respondent No.3 shai! not be done 'w'i&iout fol!o'«»ing due procedure of law, jncluding prior notics to the petitioners. 5. In visw of She foregoing, the petition sSands disposed of.No ordsr asto costs. 6. The interim order granted on 20.11.2007 stands discharged. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Thakur