HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR WR1T PETIT10N (O N0. M70 OF 2007 PETlTiONER E3evnarayan Chandra, ®oStiri Duturam Chandra, aged about 62 . years, fVo. Mithumuda, Raigarh, Tahsi! & ESistrict Raigarh (CG). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ftrough Sscretary, ; Urban Administration and Devetopment Oepartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (GG); 2. The Municipai Corporation, Raigarh, • through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, Tahsit & District Raigar,h(CG). 3. The Collector, Fteigarh, Tateii & District Raigarh (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Consliluton of india) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. /^nihotri, J. Present:- Shri Gautam Bhaduri and Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsei forthe petitioner. Shri Atok Bakshi, Govt. Actvocate for the State.. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms Meera Jaiswal, , Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAU ("assed on this 9"' day of Juiy, 2009) Heard learned counsel forthe parties. 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the lane crf acquisition crf land a demaroation report, on the requeet of the petitioner, Was obtained from the Nayab Tahsildar wherein it was irtiraaled ttat the land in dispute bearing khasra Nos.191/1, 192/2 & 192/3 admeasuring 0.082 hectares indicates ownership of the petitioner. At the time of detennination of compensation.the respondent Corporation has gone for 3 demaroation report, which indicates that the land so .aoquired is not the tand, wrtiteh is cldmed by the petitioner. . 3) Be that as it may, this petition involves disputed question of Tacts and, as such, this Court has no wherewithal te settto the disputed question of Tacts, as "rt requires examination of wttnesses, evidences, documents and cross-examination thereof. This Court decides the fssue on the basis of affidavit itseif that may not be sufficient to decide the issue vwth regarel to tUe smd ownerehip ofthe parties on the tand in question. 4) Under the aforesaid cireumstEmces, vwUiout expiessing an/ opinion on the merits of the cseae, the writ petition is dismis^sd. -However, nberty ts reserved to the parties to take recouree to the competsrtf jurisdictionsd cml Court to settle the dispute, if so advised. y>- Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge