1^ 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. ( CHHATTCS6ARH) WRIT PETETION No:-^&^^/2002. ?.^^ s PETCTCONER: U.D. LOttIANI., S/0 Late Ibrahim khan Lohani Aged about 68, Yrs. R/0. Ward No.3, Tumgaon Road, Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) -:V ER SU S :- R6SPON&ENTS:- l/. STATE OF CHHArTCGARH ( Through , The Collector, Distt. Mahasamund. (C.G.). ^^>s^' K>^^"/ ^••'c^' ^<^'~^ ^-•^•^^ 2/. TheS.&.O Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.). >+ 3/. The Commandant Home 6uard. Raipur, Distt. Raipur.(C^?. 4/. The State of Chhattisgarh. Through , The Secres^tory, Revenue Department» t>.K. Mantralaya Bhavan. '\ Raipur, bistt. Raipur.(fc.i3.% WRIT PETITEON UNDER SECTCON 226 ./227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANC OF WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANDAMU5 PROHIBITCON <& OTHER SUITABLE WRIT (S) ORD6P y^*x_^^pt r^'^'Yi^jff^T-^tk. i/^\. :'^*<•!!.: T IRi' 8S BK 't^^ "S£ BBf!: ;f£*tif- MB :lt^ •llllj^ 888;! )Kg| \K S 28 s:ss BSS 1111 El^it • l:SKSt^ III,, lfiiBi ffil :^cl! Kir ^B: BS.i E';l^ll IJ!1fiiII ;SI! sf/[ ai:1 ^^: i^'lil^; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0.1858 OF 2002 Petitioner U.D.Lohani Versus ashok Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri J.A. Lohani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 4th day of October, 2010) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 1.12.2001 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controlling Authority, Mahasamund, under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short "the Act, 1961"). 2. Thereis a provision of statutory appeal, as provided under Section 31 of the Act, 1961 that appeal shall lie from every order of the Renf Controlling Authority made under the Act, 1961 to the District Judge or an Additional District Judge having territorial jurisdiction. 3. At this stage, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to take recourse to statutory appellate forum, that may be available under the provisions of law, if so advised. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. In the event, an appeal is preferred, since the petitioner was pursuing the remedy in this Court under bona fide belief, the limitation would start from the date of passing of this order. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge