HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR S.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J WritPetition (C)No.70456f2009 Petitloner Vs Respondents Snrrt. Sushma Dani, aged about 48 years, Wife of Doctor Shri Jugat Kishore Dani Resident of HIG 59, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, Tah. & Distt. Koftia (CG) Municipal Corporation Korba Through the commissioner of the Municipal Corporation Korba, Korba, Tah. & Distt. Korba (CG) ORAL^RDER (2mDecember, 2009) Dhirendra Mishra. >J ShriAiK.Agrawal, cQunselforthepetitioner. The petitioner by the instant petiflon has prayed ft>r declaring the actionof the respondentauthorities in sending notlce/order (Annexure P/1) as illegal, void and inoperative, and restraining the respondent from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner Tor recoveryof the sum shown m the said document. Learned counsel for the petlttoner submits that the property in question was purehased by one Shaitendra Sharma on the basis of hire purchaseagreement from the respondent. The said Shailendra Sharma has entered Into an agreement of sal®with the petitioner vide AnneXure P13 and transferred possession bf the said property to the petittoner. He has|also executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner w respect to the said property. However, despite the property stands transferred to the petitionerand total consideration against the said property has been paid by the said ShailendraSharmatotherespondent, byway ofnotice ofAnnexyre P/1, an illegal demand of Rs.3,83,003/- and odd amount has been made by the respondent. The petitioner, being aperson in possessionoftheisaid property on the strength of agreelnent to sate, is entitled to impugh the notice ofAnnexureP/1. l-1eard learned counsel for the applicant. From perusal of the documents annexed with the petition, 1 flnd that there is no document, which establishes the titte of the petitioner on the sald property. Even, the noUce of Annexure P/1 has been issued by SpecialjArea Development Authority (in short "SADA") to Shailendra Sharma and therefore, in the consideredopinion of this Court, the instant peUtion at the instanceofpetitioneragainstSADAimpugningthenoticeofAnneiwreP/IJs not maintainabte. Accordingly.the petitlon isdismissedas not mainteunalUe. -.11'';' ^ Im Sd/- Dhu-endraMishra Judge