PETITIONER ^r-/^ /- .,En t":»"'T??©" gl^gli-? W^'^"' IN THE HIGH CQURTLQF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l W.P. (Cl No. ^S-^ /2009 S.B.ILOCAL BODYl ..<<>' ^^y^ 4/";V^^ ^•^y '/•^Qpy Smt. Sheela Devi Through Power ofAttorney Vijay Kumar Manglani, S/o Naindeo Manglani Age 31 Years R/o Prop. of Jaikara Trading Telibandha,G.E.Road, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS PONDENTS 1. -^MunicipaI Corporation Through Commissioner, / Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, RaipurfC.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^ssr^ ^SS^S-S: % ';-€gissq^i^ic-22 " ff ^ •^. .-•? "-^I^I^T '%iiRT3n^i ^•41cb ^i?TT ~F31 'i-lWWi, ^iS\W , hwwy tfltfCTI Chllch..^.^£>^:UFt. an^iwiwgfttT ^iT^ftrl^l^ 'HR^f ^ 'fe^ 7f^R3T? ^T 3|1;<Tit gn^[ SB : Mon'Bie snn maninara ivionain snnvastava. ^. ii.n?jftii trte Shri C.R.Sahu, counsei for f!\ Shri Kashif Shakeei, counsel Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur| No.2. in tnis petition, the petitlonet jrant of compensation in accordanc| Municipai Corporation Act. 19561 No.257/07 on 29/3/07 in the case of vorooration ana anomer. Learnea counsei ror tne pai involvea in tnis present petition, tn| Division Bench of this Court in VI decided on 21/10/09 wherein thisl cases or tnose, wnose buildings '4 disposed off on the same terms. T| the foiiowin.q directions as. ine application ot me petr considered by the respondent / Cot petrtioner was servea with notlces in case, uorporation comes to the tne petitsoners ciaim tor compensati / i;orporation unaer tne provislons no aareement is arrived at with resrtiect petitioner. rorresponaentNo.1. Deputy Advocate General for respondent nas prayea Tor issuance or airecnon ror je with the provisions of Section 387 of the as oraered w this Coun ln w.p.ics f Deepak Kumar Shrivastava v. Municioat jties jointiy submit that in so far as issue same is covered bv the declsion of the V.A.NO.143/09 and batch of writ appeals Court has directed consideration of the fere aemoiisnea ana thls petition may De jiis petition is accordingiy disposed off with loner, OT she beins the ov/ner shai! be rporation notwithstanding the fact that the jnder Section 322/323 of the A.ct of 1956. ;onciusion that the petitioner Is the owner. ion shall be considered by the respondent sfSection 305 ofthe Act of 1956. in case. 'ect to compensanon or aamages, it would ['qt^^fe'^ \\ 'f V'-1-:- '^'.. ^, .XI-SC-22 sr'^[qn i^w sn^r ?tl^ictl ^Ti ?fl ueep'E ?«I^qrqicPT, iSTfl'y'ld, ('(dl-My l^ L^^,^3-lvai "^R 2US' Sfl^T'g^TW: ^l)?^ — R- De open ror tne petitioner to Invok a^a Corpfcraf b). In case, pemioner's case above, the oetitioner shail be ds renaDilitatson maae Dy tne rehabilitation by the Corporation accoraance witn tne norms anoraing opponunity OT nearlng to 'he petition is accordingiy efisposed c q)ll'4i'<?:t'qt'? 'RR^f ^ 'fe^ <f^i^.R '^ sipaq 3ri^f me Drovisions of Section as/ or tne Act of is not rouna covered unaer uiause-a as ait with in accordance with the norms for lon ana tne commsnee consfltutea for ihail scrutinize the case of the peiitioner in DV tnem, and deciae me same after me petitionerto present ner csaim. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge h