IN THE HIGH COURT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRITPETITIQN (Q NO.S^^ ^ /2007 PETtTIONER : ^fc^r.. ^••:^^"" 1"\&\^"^^--"" •^ •« y ^o-- '.^vy'iiwt V..- 66' ^^. r?r/AS»&OM*\^S Manohar Lal Sahu S/o Late- Shri Gambhir Ram Sahu aged about 74 Years R7o Village- & Post - Saja Tah- Saja District- Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1 State ofChhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department & Administration D.K.S. /^Bhavan Raipur (C.G.) 2 Sub Divisional Of&cer Public Work Department Saja Sub Divisional Saja ^Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3 Executive Eagineer PubUc Work Department Bemetara ,Divisioa Bemetara .Distt. Durg 4 Sub Divisional OfGcer Distt. Durg 5. Nagar Panchayat, Saja, through its President, Nagar Panchayat Saja, District Durg (CG). WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE2260FTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^aa ^-1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETmQNERS WKST PETmON (Q No. 4790 of2007 Santosh Devi & Another VERSUS ; RESPQNDENTS State ofChhattisgarh & Others And W.P. rONos. 5143, 5343 & 5939of2007 WMT PETmON tTNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satfsh K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Ms. Rsnu Kochara, Advocate ibr the petitioners. ; Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer forlhe State. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate forthe respondent Nagar PaachayaL sa)a. , g ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 5th day of August, 2010) Gowri W.P. (C) Nos. 4790, 5143, 5343 & 5959 of 2007, involve the same question oflaw and common facts and, as such, they are being disposed of bythis common order. Challenge in these batch of petitions is that pursuant to the gewral notice published in the news paper on 30//07/2007, the respondent Nagar Panchayat is proceeding to demarcate the property and thereafter, danoUsh the structure in dispute. Shri lliakur, leamed counsel appearing for the req»ondent-Nagar Panchayat, lairly submits that pursuant to the notice, no steps have been initiated to demolish any structure except demarcatioa for the purpose of widening ofroad. Leamed counsel fiuther submits that if Nagar Panchayat takes decision to demolish the structure ofthe petitioners, they would be afforded an opportunity ofhearing by issuing a show cause notice and after hearing their respective cases. In view of foregoing, according to the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners, nothing survives in these petitions for adjudication. Accordmgly, the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge