0% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 564 of 2010 PETITIONER Raju Shyam aged about 31 years, S/o Late Ramsharan, R/o Village Dholpur, Tahsil Khadgawa, Distt. Koriya Versus RESPONDENTS A The District Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit through its Branch Manager, Branch Manendragarh, DistL Koriya 2. Sales Officer, The District Sahakari Krishi Aur Gramin Vikas Bank ,Maryadit, Branch Manendragarh, DiStt. Koriya 3. Tahsildar, Khadgawa, Distt. Koriya 4. Dev Singh, aged about 4O years, R/o Post Office Koda, Vai Manendragarh, Village ,Dholpur, Tahsil Khadgawa, Distt. Koriya (Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Appearance : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioner. - None for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (15.02.201 0) .1 l Heard on admission. Petitioner-Raju Shyam has filed this petition for the following relief(s):— “l The Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set aside the letter/order dated 16/1 2/09 passed by respondent no.2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to restrain the respondents from interference with the possession of the petitioner over the property situated at Plot No.799 Area 1.16 Hectare and Plot No. 869 area 2.07 Hectare, Total area 3.23 hectare 7.98 acre of land. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to call for the records of the case from the respondent. 2 (y; W.P.(Cz No. 564 of2010 IV Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court déems fit and. proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” The petitioner, thus in substance, is praying for quashment of the demand notice issued by respondent No.2- W W WWW WW W W WW . The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the auction has already taken place on 29.12.2009 and respondent No.4 has purchased the property but the auction sale has not been confirmed till date. He submits that the petitioner has med an objection looking to the veracity in the amount under R.R.C. issued and the subsequent demand notice. He further submits that the land in question belongs to Scheduled Tribe, therefore, the same cannot be auctioned in view of the provisions of Section 165 of the M.P.(C.G.) Land Revenue Code, 1959. He submits that though a representation has been filed but he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a detailed representation/objection raising all these grounds. 3 Permission granted. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 564/2010 is disposed of as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. lt is expected that if such an objection is filed, it shall be disposed of by the authority concerned in accordance with law. i Certified copy as ‘per rules. / sw- SUNIL KUMAR 5m Judge Vat”