PETITIONER§ duglal Patel aged 80 years Son 0f late bhn Sukaluram Patel Chhamulal Patel aged 55 years, son of Jugaruram Patel Smt. Shantibai aged 40 years, Wife of andkumar Patel Smt. Najnabai aged 35 years, Wife of Bholaram Patel Shri Gyaneshwar aged. 25 yeazs Kuman' Yogesh aged 22 years Kumari Pinki aged 20 years Kumari Sarita 19 years (2 to 8 L Rs of deceased Jugaru S/o Sukalu) Derharam Patel aged 50 years Son of late Prahalad Patel Smt. Baishakhjn Bai aged 60 years Widow of late Pxahlad Patel Smt‘ Bhumika Bai aged 4O years Wife of Sakhaxam Patel Somnath Patel aged 35, years Son of late Shrl Prahalad Patel Kumarl Chandrakanta aged 30 years l Daughter of late Prahalad Patel ( 9 to 13 L,Rs. ofPxahlad S/o‘ Sukalu) All Bhumiswami of land at Bhilai—3, Tah. Patan, Distt. Durg 11. 12. 13. Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Nagariya 8a Paryavaxan Department, D.K,S.Bhava11, Raipur (CG) Collector, (Land Acquisition) Durg Municipal Corporation, Bhilaj, Through the Commissioner, Muxn'cipal Corporation, Bhilai Distt. Durg Sub Divisional emcer, Sub Division No.2, Durg HIGH QOURT OF CHHATTI$§Agy AT BILASPUR “Li-4c) No. 6621/2007 1. N M WRIT PETITION UNER D ARTICLE 226 OF THE (SB: Hn'ble Mr. Justice Satih K. Agaihotri) Shri Somkaxlt Vsrma, coa} for the peu'tioners. CONSTIUTION O IN m T F DIA o s mm u e a \ (Passed on this 31“ day of October, 2007) Shri Smesh Bajaj, Governmnt Advocte fQr the State. Learned counsel appealing for the petitioners submits that the Municipal Corporation has made drainage on the plivate land bn K N c 8 alea 08 decimal/ofthe petitioners. ea‘ng hasra o. 82/ 1 area 0.36 deimal and Khasra No. 9/3 It is submitted by learned counsel appearin for the respondent/ State that the fact with regard to the ownership of the property annot be settled by ts Court. The ppropn'ate orum is C Cour Further, this drainage has bee constlucted way back ivil t n prior to 25.089. The disputed question of' facts are involved in regard to the ownership ofthe property, which cannot be decided on the basis of some documents tiled by the petitioners. . Thus, this petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to Civil jurisdiction if, so advised. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. ‘1 Sdl- . Satish K. Agnihotn Judge /, Stigma 0 R D E R .0 g c hi a f 9. 4