•^l (^Fi<yz5^. sgi( E! CfeSi IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA1TISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WR1T PETITION (C) N0. ^f01\ OF 2010 fS.B.) ?.^^^ ^^^' a',eA--' PETITIONER -^ o Smt. Rajinder Kaur Hora Wife of Shri Diler Singh Hora, aged about5byears, R/o Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1 f The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development and Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.), through: its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Zone Commissioner, Zone No.2, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.j. 4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETIT10N UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONO_F INDIA HIQH COURT OF CHMATTiSGARH AT BiLASPUR WRIT PETiTION (C)NO. 40110F 2010 Smt. Raiinder Kaur Hora tespondents Siate of Chhattisgarh & Others WRiT PETiTSON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF INDiA (SB : Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) tsreseni^- Shri P.K.Tuteiyan, Advocate for the petitii Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate ror 'WS-^arf'Si-k. i^^E-i^" fPassed on 03r° dav of Auaust. 2010) Ths petitioner, bv this petitlon, not to demolish the buiidlng in aue course OT iaw. a direction to the respondents anv manner without followina the The petitioner has not impugned any speciflc oroer whersby the petitloner has an apprehenslon that the property of the petitioner may oe aemoiisnea oy ine responaent autnontiss, tnat tne respondenis have marked the property of the petitioner for demoiition for which, the petitioner has no basis. The apprehension is on the basis of some orai statements, made bv an official of ths Corporatlon that the property is being marked for aemoiition. The petitioner has produced certain documents indicatina his ownership on the propertv in dispute. Slnce there is no notice or •nnfilitinn nf th^ nrnn^rtv thl?; nniift r:?:snnnt int'si-ferp ^t •<lfr-rf;i^^-el^Ai^ti ^^a blivrf *-?lt^^'F>rfifc^^ ^d^ft^ li»^\^J^Miir ^/^i^lij^^^ ifiL^rf-i^^'i^- ^^^ t'hi^ sfsn^ nn fhst h^%i% nf mfflf^ ^nnr^hisnsinn riH fhs nsn' nf th: ^i iiO ^5i,C.i^J^ t^E 1 a-; t^ I-^G-^?;0 ^^1 i i 3^S ^ CAE^^I ^l l=^d 1^^J^^ ^ y^i i,U^? ^Cia^ ^? ^li ^^ - t l petitioner, which has no basis. Even ctherwlse, St is wet! settied that if there is anv disDUte, no order Dreiudicia! to the interest of the affected person shali be passed without affording an opportunity of oeing neara. Thus, at this staae. the pstition is Dre-mature and is accordinalv dismissed. No order asto costs. —-- Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 5>^