1^;sw <tflw W3 W^M ~S^ ''WER^ f3etSW^ (W7[ ftR -T. 90/M07 3!Tqs;^<!"i 1. WT ^IT SHWJ? CPWT40 W 2. ras %®Tiq;Ta! q? cPWT 38 AA ^T?ET F-raRH WRTuW?l, ncr 1yi?fTi^Tray \iC'ViE\ri 1. y*!rii<i<!s ?ire-r IRT •°m ^1 ^w ~§f.'^wv. r<w ^rqy 2. Vs^fe-f. fvTOT Rdi'il^ 3. agtiic'tQM wwv, wvfwy 4. Tm erm tcTre^ ^RT sn^T f^pn^ SB:Hon'bSe . Safish K. Agnmotri.J. Smt. Krishnakanta, petitjoner in person . . Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, counsel for th®respordait No.4. (Passedon 24 dayofJune,2008) Smt. KrishnaRanta, petitioner in person has filed this'reviay petitton seeking review of the order dated 27-6-2007 passed in Writ Petition No. 3Q6/2Q04 (Rambhaiya and Srrrt. Krishnakanta Vs. StaEe of Chhattisgarh and others). Th8 matter was disposed of in view of the fact as stated by fhe then teamed counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 that the petitioners were aliotted aiternative accommodations under the scheme known as 'Balmik! Ambedkar Awas Yojna' n the buiiding No.B/17 (ESW) at Irrilibhatha, Bandhwspara, Biiaspur. It was further stated that the petitioners were encroachers, however, iooktng intotheir condition, aiternative sltes were ailotted to them on lease. (~~~~-. •^sa 0-- 2) Petitioner in person hss fited this review petition on the grounc present she is staylng at Chatidih, whoie-sale Sabji Mandi, Bilaspur. Aocordlng to the petitioner, this plot was aliotted to.her by ttie then Municipal Commissioner. Engineer and Naib Tahsildar have arranged construction of the house also. She further submits tiiat the Govsrnment has granted pen-nission to run Annapurna Dalbhat Center fromthesaid plot where at present she is residing. 3) The scope of the review petition is iimited. The review petttion is to be entertained when there is apparert error on the faoe of record, seme documents, which were in existence, could not be produced with due diligence and for any other reason, as prescribed under the provlsions of Order 47, Ruie 1 of the Code of Civi! Procedure. This petition was entertained keeping in view the fact that the petitioner c!aims to be a poor lady and is earning her livelihood from Annapums Daibhat Center. 4) Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 would submit that the petitloner was nevec allotted this plot. The petttioner is an enoroacher and running Annapuma Dalbhat Center. 5) Be that as It may, since the case involves ciisputed questions crf.facts, it is expedient to direot the Commissioner, Muniotpa! Corporation, Bllaspur, to consider her case afresh for grant of any accommodation as permissible, may be present aocommodation, in accoidance with law, on its own merlt. S) Raju in view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a directlon to~the Commissioner, iViunicipat Corporation, Bilaspur, to consider the case of the petitioner expedlttousiy, as eariy as possible, preferabty within a period of six weeks from the date of .'•eceipt of this order. Review petition is aocordiRgiy disposedof. : Satish K. Agnihotri Judge