c^- £r&^' ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETIT10N (C) N0. SO^^ OF2009 PETITIONERS tV^- .^%y 4^ ^) f'y •./ 1. Dilip Singh Saluja, S/0 late Ajit Singh Saluja, aged about 57 years. 2. Harbhajan Sinah Saluja, S/0 late Ajrt Singh Saluja, aged about 53 years. ^ 3. Harvinder Singh Saluja, S/0 late Ajit Singh Saluja, aged about 40 years. All are R/0 Station Road, Kharsiya, District- Raigarh, (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS ^ : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.). 2. Collector, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, (C.G.). 3. Municipal Council, Kharsiya, through its Chief Municjpal Officer, ^tea^st^a, District- Rajgai'bt (C.-Q.) /4. Sub Divisional Officer, Kharsiya, District Raigarh, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA COURTOF CHHA'TTISGARH : BiLASPUR PETiTiONERS WRIT PETITiON sQ No. 3053 OF 2009 DISip Singh Saluja & Others RESPONDENTS Versus ; State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticie 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Singie Bencn : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. «J Present:" Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Advocate Genera! with Shri Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Shri Sudeep Agrawai, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri Amit Katariya, Collector, Raigarh and Shri M.KPathak, Chief Munjdpal Officer, Muni'dpaj Council Kharsiya, both are present in the Court. • .^ i GRDER (Passed on this 14tn day of Qctober, 2011) 1. Heard iearned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. • Case of the petitioners is that a piece of land admeasuring 0.48 decimal. vvas donated by the' petitioners to the State Government on 05th November, 2004 with certaln condltiQns. One condltion was tnat In the memor^ of Ajit Singh Saiuja the name of the road wouid be declared as "Ajlt Singh I^arg" and secondiy, three shops in the shopping complex situated at Sus Stand wouid be handed over to the petitioners. Learned counsel'further submlts that the construction vvork ofshoppjng compiex is aSmost complete, but the'fespondents j,e. State as we!l as Municipai Council, 'have not complie'd with the aforesaid conditlons. 3. According to the iearned counsel appearing for the State, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive in'vievv of the.order dated 26 September, 2011, passed by the Collector, Rasgarh, on the basis of the note sheet dated 26th September, 2011 of the Chlef Municipal Officer, Nagar Pallka, Kharsiya. It is assured by the Coiiector, Raigarh, present in the Court, that the needfui wlil be. done vvithin a period of one week. 4, In vievv of foregoing', learned counsei appearing for the petitioners submits that nolhing symves for adjudicatjon in this matter, at this stage. 5. Accodingly, the v^rit petitiGn stands dlsposed of, No order asto costs. ssnoR Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge