tt.B%-r ^ B M .[-I^GWCO^RT ©FJUESICATURE AT B:ILASPUR .(C.G W.RIT PBITlCyiM (m N0. ^oot^ /20'iO PEIlTiSNSRS 1. RESRfiKDENIS 1. ^ M :.:1^% ^wy ^7W ^? «~- A" ^? 's/ 2. :,3, 4. •s. 6. 7. 8. ?. 1Q, 11, Sdntdds Dhritlahre S/o Bodhi, aged gbout.&O yeprs, __; R/6 village—Baihar, Block - Arang, Tahsit- Ara.ng, District - Raipur ^C.G.] VERSUS : The Stdt®of Chhattisgdh, / Tlnrough : TMe Secre'tary; Revenue Department,: D.K.S. Bhdwan, Wantrdldya, Raipur (C.G.J ;Th©Collector, Raipur, District -Raipur The Tghsildar, Arang, Tahsil 'Gffice - Arang, Dis'trict - Raipur (C.G.j • Mansharam tC.G.). ..' S/o Makhan Sahu, MeinthiFlgt S/b Chaitu Sahu, aged about'62 yedrs, , ' . Nargya Prasad SQhu, S/o Lgte ManhQran Lal Sahu,ageci about 30 years,: . . Bishesar Yddav S/© bate Kanhaiya tgl aged dbout 60 years, Shiv Kumar Sahu S/o Late .Ramel-iaran Sahu, aged dbout 52 ygars, Bishali Ram Sahu S/o Late Sukhlal Sahu,;agedabout 60 years,; Ghandrgkdnt' -Banjare, S/o: ; Late Pyqrelcil. Bartjare, .aged .about 55 years,' ;, . ,. •:•'.•.. . •: • ':.' ©hasirdm Sahu.S/o Pardeshr'Ram, aged; obout '45 years, All; R/o yillage -Baihar,: Block—Arang, Tahsil: -ArQng;E2istn<3t-Raipur(<3.C3:),..'';:; ^^^"^/ ^n«^/ Pgvifra Sahu .&/o not' knQwn; aged dbQOt' ; • years; ;R/o: vjllaQe^.1 Bhansoj,' Block & :-Ta:h5it 1 -^ Arang, Disti-iet-RaipLirfC.G.) ® 13. The Village Panchayat:—Baihar, through : The Sarpanch. Village Panchayat - Baihar, Block & Tahsil - Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.) Wia RETITIQN: UNDER AITICLE ^226 OF THE c@!iMS"rrru®:N ©F INDI^ FOR ISSUANCE OF ^BCT IN ; TME NA'rURE. Q:F /^ANDAMUST, C lC:)RAgyA©AlNSTTrtE_RESPQNDENTS HIGHCOURT ORCHHATriSQARH KT BIU^PUR WFHT PETmON (0 N0.6802 OF 2010 P«litionCT Versus R(»Dondents Santdas Dhritlahre The State of Chhattisgarh Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 228 OF TW CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'bte Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) ,M- i±*ffiS.i i^l ^gy- Present:- Shri S.C.Verma, Advocatefor the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Pa^ed on 1^* day of NovemBer, 2010) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner sutwnits that the impugned notice dated 25.10.2010, is not a show cause notice, btrt it appears to be a mere Tormaliti^, as the ©ramPanchayat Baihar has already decided that the petitjpner was in unauthorlzal po^e^ion of the land bearing Wrtasra No.272. Shri Bhatia, leamed Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing fqr the State respondent sybmits that the impugned nctice is infact a iwtice. as the contentionofthe petltjoner that jt has pre-determlned the issue, cannot bemacle out fromthe perusal ofthe nottee. Bethat as it may,wfthoyt matdng anyobservation on merit ofthe case, since the petitiQnerhas beengiven only three days time to respondthe nptiGe dated 25.10.2)10, whieh is not reasonable from any standard, the petitloner te granted 10 days time to resppnd tp the ntrtice fonn today and firBl order afteraffording an opportunjty of hearing to the petitioner shatl be passed thereafter, in accordance with law andon its own merits. In view of the above, thepetitionstends disposed of. No order astoco^s. Sdl- f^V ^^s^ Vbotn .-.._,_.—_:..___^