.'<- 'llif Writ Petition No. 1288 of 2001 Smt. Rama Devi, W/o. Gopal Jethi, aged 3S.years. resident of TeJibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). Versus The State of through the ' 'syeiopment Urban and Administration Raiour. 2.5 •3) Joint Director, Town and Country P!anning, Dlstrict Office, Raipur. Gram > Panchaygt Labhandi, Block Dharsivan, District Raipur. iWrit Petltion under ArSicle 226/227 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnii Present: Shri B.D. Guru, counss! for the petitloner. Shri Arvind Dubey, Panel Lawyer for the State. (Passed on 16-11-2007) • Learned counsel aDoearina for the oetitioner'submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by notice dated 10-7-2001 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Joint Director, catling upon the petitioner to remove the structure in dispute wlthin thiriy days, failing which the same v/ould be removed. 2) This Court on 2-8-2001 directed to maintain status quo as obtained on that day at 4.30 p.m. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioner is continuing in possession of the structure in question. In normal ciroumstances, dlsputed facts should not be interfered with in writ jurisdtction, However, in the facts of the ease, it appears that it vi/as nof •\:."-^.. ^_.;;:\: ..^a&a. fa^:^':?i'??r;3^i^ i-S^fS^:,;?^^s^S3 Raju n: !;>, 2.- fm showcause notice to submit repiy, but it was notice te remove the structure within Drescribed Deriod. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that no steps to remove or dispossess the petitioner from the structure In dispute, shail be taken without affordlng proper opportun'fy of hearin'g to him In accordance with law, without insisting compliance ofthe impugned order dated 10-7-2001. 3} in view of the foregoing, according fo the iearned counsei appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in the matter. Accordingiy, {hls petition isdisposed of. ' Sd/- Satishl<.Agmhotri Judge 'l'l")' y ww'