s"^ . IB..IBE HIGH COuBf 03? M&DHI& _PE&DSSH Al J&B&LPUS M.P . JiiO OP 1939 ^.,< 4N '^.g,i-M^_^: PaCIIIOIUi.B; QO" s/s-Sna.kti Pictures Circuit ISaai^'I,:lmited, nt r reglstered uader CoBpanies' Act, having its • ^ ,/ ^ registered office at Saroj lalkies Sailding ^\ ^/ ^ in AmarOT-ati,Ihroagb its CiaairBian, Kamalkislior: .^\/._ ' S/o.i'laneklal'Bathi, Saroj Talkies Bailding, . fet' ^n' ^ v" • Amarsvaftx, tfafaarashtra. . . ' .; i - Versus - BBSPOHpaff-a; ^ . ihe State of Madhya Pradesh, Ttirough ~s Ihe Secretary, Bevenue BepartB^at, Vallabh Siawan, opal. • ;, -s" 2,^ The Collector, Eaipur; . TT ~~~-a~~s' 3» Ihe Eegistrar, Firas and societies, i Old Secretariat Bailding, Bbopal. SIiri • ' ^ ^ 4. Dudfaadari/TaishnaTa Trast Fund, 'Birougti ,L its Seeretary at Ite.ipur. —. "•' ^' $. Oarga Sdacation Society, Slaroagto ^ itssecretary, S&ipur, '' ~-s' 6. The Principal, Government sanskrit College, Baipur, 7. Itie Treasurer, a'laritable Eadowaents, Hadhya Pradesh, Blaopal* (i';s. I:', w. _.^ _^^. .gJSTI'riOM Ui'.uBE AHriGLSS 596 AHU 297 OF COBSSIIUIIOH O? SiOU. -FQE WB-CES- IS IHE itorBSg QF GEiSEIOMEl. M&MMMtB. ^'f^ .P£(.)SI§£EIQK,S:TC,apjj i'OR_A?FEOPBIa3'E FBgEHSa BIBSCTIOSS^L ^f r:'::s C,,C "i J ^^.it- ^e^^ 1»L-C T,!V k-^ntt ) .^:-^'' --i/y'' ' ; '•1\ • ''° AS lA,-/-i "/•'^^' ^^^ i'§^ffVi: 8;. ,,_Baipur BevelopBient AathcrSfcy, 1 ,^Gons1;:it;ut®du/s \3» as To»flK& Country jpa.anniBg Ai2ther.I.ty"taBder tQ& SsrGTa.s.^pns of K<g .Hagar Tattea.gram Kivesli^^tUiiaiyaa,1973) throBgli its CaSl.raan, fiaipur (M.p.). ,<«lll'"'"III: k»-i!l;'8?il ^v : V"^SS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITLON_N0.21280F 1989 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Uown M/s Shakti Pictures Circuit Limited Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) & Others (Writ Petition underArticte 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sanjay K.Agrawal with Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Shri Goutam Bhadurh-Advocate for the respondent No.5. Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate for the respondent No.4 & 6. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 11thdayofAugust, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In the light of affidavit dated 10/08/2010 filed by the respondent/State, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive, as the land acquisition proceedings have already been dropped by the State Government. 3. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition foradjudication and the same has become infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, as having become infructuous. However, liberty is reserved to the State to take appropriate steps, ifso advised, in accordance with law. o Sd/- Satish' K. Agajhotri Judge ^ Ife -! ^-,- ^ ' ^- w, €