3S»^- 5'. ^^r ^F/c^Z— IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR w.p.Np.rc^ ^r / 2007 Petitioner^g^ ^^ .^0,\'' ^y^ <^€/-'""" .^'' Respondents Versus ,&T^ ^jCropal Krishna Beriwal Aged about 61 years, S/o Late Sagar Mal Beriwal, R/o Civil Line Raigarh, Dist: Raigarh-(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretaiy Local Administration, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur, Dist: Raipur-(C.G.) 2. .. The Collector, Raigarh, Dist: Raigarh-(C.G.) 3. The Municipal Corporation, ^ Through - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raigarh- (C.G.). fel WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 / (^ OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN ^^TO^RE OF MANDAMUS / CERTIORARI AND / OR FOR / ^^_____jy^, ORDERS IN NATURE QFWRITS, ^' 3Tr^T^T f^TW 31T^T 5h^i<^ 'H[^a -^c[ -^TqTo^, ^TftW^. ^dl-H^ _.M..&.:.^ WR^T^RT^ 'fN'^ST" ^TT^T ^<TI^R Trf^T SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra ivlo Q7-04=2Q11 Shri Srijith Nair, counsei fofr the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dep| respondentNo.1 and2. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, coij(nsel for respondent No.3. This petition has been fii^d by the petitioner on an apprehension that respondent No.3, whiie widening house of the petitioner. jt is the case of the petil house pver the iand, which (Annexure P/1). Further asserti property, appiied for mutation 01 and the name of the petitioner from the bank in order to ren< condition. However, after constn stated that the respondents ai construction in order to pave v request is oral and tiii date no nc by respondent No.3. Though, no return has bee for respondent No.3 submits tha ^l^fd^l-l 'RTH^ff ^ f^st Tf^?K ^^R^Tr^T »ianShrivastava. J. ^ty Government Advocate for the State/ the road may demolish boundary wail of the ioner that the petitioner has constructed a ie purchased vide registered saie deed on is that the petitioner, after purchase of his name and the records were corrected ^as mutated. The petitioner obtained ioan j)vate his house which was in diiapidated ^ction has been raised by the petitioner, it is |e requiring the petitioner to remove the ^ay for widening of the road, though this |tice or any order in writing has been issued |n fiied by respondent No.3, iearned counsej I: if any action is taken by respondent No.3, the same would be taken strictiy, in accordance with iaw and in case of a pubiic road, proper notice wouid be given and the petitioner would be arforded opportunity of hearing. j in this view of the matter, ;this petition is finaiiy disposed off. in case, respondent No.3 intends to take any action against the petitioner on any [^^ tt^y T I-HC-22 -3-5c[ ^i^iid^, ^ftwr^. fG«ns^ll< SIT^T XRT^ ..^:l:.Q^..:..^h'f- 200 ^RTO^IT ^W^ 'fN^s?' 3TF^T'^I f^ri^ STI^T '9b^i^ <nfia Dee^pti '3TT^I '^aT^R Trft^T —-O ^ aliegation of encroachment or any c the boundary wail, the respondent / the petitioner arfording him an ^ther action is contempiated to demoiish Corporation shali give proper notice to opportjunity of neasjng,_ Man,ndra Mos^n S.riva^ya <=hi<Lif<n4l'i 'WT^rf ^ fel^t <f^i^i< ^ 'STf^TT ^TT^T