IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS § W.P.(C) No. 5r L73 /n /2011 / I 1] Smt. Ambika Mishra, Wd/o. Late Shivnath Mishra, aged about 70 years, R/o. Sattipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2] Rakesh Kumar Mishra, S/o. Late Shivnath Mishra, aged about 42 years, R/o. Sattipara, Ambikapmy District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through — Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Town and Country Planning department through its Director, Town and country planning department Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Director, Town and Country Planning Department Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, District w Surguja (C.G.) 5] Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, through — its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur (C.G.) 6} Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur (C.G.) 7] Town & Country Planning Department, Regional Office, Ambikapur, through — Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District — Surguja (C.G.) 8]* Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) t WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 222 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f] ,_ PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER (S): As stated above in the cause title. ‘ \ . @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIONIC) NO.7.434 OF 2011 PETlTlONERS Smt. Ambika Mishra & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. l Present :- Shri Manoj Paranjape, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for the State. Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6. RESPONDENTS O R D E R (Passed on this 9m day of December, 2011) Heard Iearned counsel for the parties. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 & 6 submits that Section 305 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 '(for short “the Act, 1956") provides for power to regulate line of buildings. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are entitled to notice of removal of some portion or any part of a building before'demolition takes place and the petitioner is further entitled to compensation. In the case on hand, the public notice has already been issued, however, the Corporation shall issue a notice to the petitioners also, before the provisions of Section 305 of the Act, 1956 is invoked for the purpose of widening of public streets. In view of foregoing, relief sought for by the petitioner by seeking a direction to the Collector and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, not to demolishgthe land indispute does not survive, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, also. t 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. z , ' " ‘Sd/- is“ , i ? Satish K. Agnihotri t Judge X