....MlVf'.y "" - 'av-Ws^ c 00 ( BEFORE THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) N0. .^7/ /2010. PETITIONERS ^ 1. Ayodhya Gupta S/o. Late Devnath Gupta, aged about 62 years, 2. Kameshwar Prasad Vishwakarma S/o. Late Ramnath Vishwakarma, aged about 49 years, 3. Amit Gupta S/o. Late Krishna Chand Gupta, aged about 34 years, 4. Purushottam Gupta S/o. Late Gulab Chand Gupta, aged about 47 years, 5. Dilip Vishwakarma S/o. Late Somnath Vishwakarma, aged about 54 years, 6. Sunil Kumar Pandey S/o. Kamalnarayan Pandey, aged about 44 years, 7. Smt. Uma @ Meera Pandey W/o. Sunil Kumar Pandey, aged about 42 years, 8. Ajay Vishwakarma S/o. Late Somnath Vishwakarma, aged about 50 years, 9. Pradeep Vishwakarma S/o. Late Somnath Vishwakarma,aged about 55 years, All R/o. Agrasen Ward, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ^ V ,^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ 2. The Collector, Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) . 3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue), Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ^ 4. Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA. ^ ^ N< /. :^... HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlSGARH : B1LASPUR WR!T_PETjTiON (C) N0, 3271 OF 2010 PET1TIONERS RESPONDENTS Ayodhya Gupfa & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WritPetition under Articls 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bSeShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sourabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer for the State/ respondents. ShriManoj Paranjape, Advocate forthe Inten/ensr. iS"S!i"\£"S3 'i (Passed on this 24l" day of -June, 2011) , Learned eounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that th,e petitiQneF hassuBmitted his repty tQ the notice dated 10.06.2010 (Annexure P-5>on'15.06.20t0 (Annexure P-6). However, the impi.'gned notice has been issued without considering reply of the petltioriers as aforestated, Thus, the respondent authoritles may be directed to consid'er the repiy filed by the petitioner/and pass the flnai order, in accordance wlth lav/. Shri Thakur, iearned counse! appearing Tor the respondents submitsthat t'nere is no objectiori to the above stated submlssions. Accordingjy, the writ petition Is disposed of. There shail not be demolition ofthe property in dispute tiii the order, as aforestated, is Dassed bythe authoritles, in Bccordance with law, on its own merit. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok