^ ^z^ iS<l;a y. Mfy ilivd^^^" •^a-B1 7 <.<•/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDieATURE AT BILASPUR WritPetition (C) No. !4<:s ofZOOB PETITIONERS : 1. SantoshKumar Rajput Sonof Late Shri Bishal Singh Rajput, aged aboyt 38 years. ..-\^. /- A'/<^y'^ ^^y/ v'n ..•"~ .'••'•v'-\° y^>>" ^•••' ^-,.,-r''-^- ;<*•'' •••' 'f'^' <»»• RESPONDENTS Kumaribai Widow of Shri Bishal Singh Rajput, aged about 62 years. Both are Resident of Near Bus .-^ . . .. >- Stand.Gunderdehi, TahsilSa% GundtrdA^ District Durg (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan.Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi, through its Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THECONSTITUTION ^OFINDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROAPRIATE WRITflWRITS, DIRECTIONS ETC. The Petitioners, above named, most respectfully beg to §ubmitas under: - 1. Particulars ofthePetitioners. Asmentioned inthecausetitle. 1 ^!fKS^. ^...^1 m fflGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR WMT PETmQNfGy No.20of2008 PETmONERS : Santosh Kumar Rajput & Another, VERSUS , RESPQNDENT& : StafeofChhattisgarh&Another. WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTFTUTION OF INDIA — SB: Hon'bleShriSatishK.AsnUiotri^J. Present: Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates fbr the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A forthe State/respondentNo. 1. SliriPrateekShamia,AdvocatefprtherespondentNQ.2. ORDERCQRAD (Passed on 29°' day bf Octoher, 2010) 1. The petitioners seek a writ in th'e nature of mandamus restrairiing theresponflentNo; 21romevictmgthepetNonersanddemolishing the petitioner's shop and residential building, situated wifhin fhe limits ofNagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi. 2. Leamed counsel appeanng for the respondent No. 2-Nagar Panchayat, Gunderdehi, submitsthat no cause of action has arisen ia the instant petition as there is no moye on the part ofthe respondent-Nagar Paaehayat, to demolish the property ia dispute. The petition has beeri filed on fhe basis of mere apprehension Ifcat his property may be demolished. He furthersubmits that if any action is proposedto be taken against the petitionei-in future, tlie same shall be done in accordanee with law. 3. In view of foregoing, accordmg to leamed counsel for the petitioner.nothingsui'vivesforadjudication. Aceordingly, the writ petition is disniissed. /'^^^°a' ^!^ ^mlut ss l^ ^'K-