^ ^^ IN__T _^@J_COURT OiF JUDICATORE AT BIIASPUR(CHH^TTIS<3ARH) WRIT PETITION N0. 9-7^ ^- /2003 PETITIONER ,^ p- / / tj ..^ ^ ^ ^y^ .^y ,^yy" "^y ^v RESPONDENTS ^ A^Kc Boy^ S/o» La-te F»N« Dey^ Aged 77 years» ©ceupation — Retired Govt.Seryant K^be Mission Hospital Road^ (C^G^) /Througfa Power of Attomey Holder^ / Utpal'Dey, S/o» A«K» Dey, Aged 39 years^ Occupation -• Business^ R/o» Mission Hospital Road» Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Manicipal Corporation^ Bilaspixr Through its Comioissionery Bilaspur (C^Ge) tefe, ps:?^%^ ^^^ 2e Cozomissioner^ Manieigal Corppration* Bilaspur (C«G») 3» Sub Divisional Magistrate^ Bilaspur (C»G«) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICIfi 226 THE CONSTITOTION QF INDI&. FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT/WRI<E^ IN THE NATURE QF CERTIORARI* mSSDkVSJS. PROHIBI'E^ON AND FOR OTHER SUIT^BLE WRIT OR WRITS- DIRECTION QR DIREGTIONS^ ORDER OR ORDERS. ]<1.-HC—7S ^I ^^ 1 Ji HFRdT^HT^i ~5^? "^qpTT^pJ^ ^TCFT^, fa^t^^ ^-.L,P.d..^o...:lL., •^200j W^T r^^h ( ^i^c^) ^mw1Hf^;f^?r 'SFprf^frT TTTR'^f 16f fe1c?t <f<^f< '^'stRR W^Y DIVISION BENCH: - HOhTBLE SHRI K.H.N. KURA|4eA. CJ & HON'BLE SHRI L.C. BHAD<DO. J. 09/07/2003 S^n Mcmindra ShrivastwaJ Shri Sanjay K Agrcwal, coujisel for the counsel for the appellant. respondents No.l and 2. Heard both the counsel, 8y this L.P.A. the app&llan^ has challen9ed the Order dflted 05-04- 2003, passed by the learned Binjgte Judge in Writ Petition No.772/2003. Thc operative porfrion of thc orde % Since the constrl meant for public purposej this petition, he moy be 9ivei dated 05-04-2003 reads thus ; iction is of development work construction work would not suffer. However, if the p<|titioner ultimately succeeds in ^ proper compensation thereof." The reply has been filed on t?ehalf of respondents No.l and 2o The mdn grievance of the a|»pellantis that the respondents are trying to disposse^ the appellant from jthe land in que$tion wi+hout folbwing duc process of low. In the reply filed ^n behalf of the respondents in para 3 it is stated thus: tt Thcrt th& answeri^ respondentd furthcr submit that they cute not 901119 to forcibly dispossess the appellant from the \and in dispute c^id they will proceed strictly m occordance with low ond ^ land of the appellant will be r&quired it will be taken sfrictly in accordance with law in ^arceJL.__L^^^..^........._^.^—-~a—<3—--- XI-HC-78 3^i ^l {<4!cb ^? ^id^ ^^i<ti p-r ^ ^ T^ ^-fi^i'n^, yxil^-i'Kc, [««ni'(-i^< ^^^^.....,......L,..^.Aw.o.......\al..^<,0 3:n^?rxra'^ (<i?^<\^) TCTWCrf?1cTW^?T -1. ^1^41^ 1tT?^if ^? f^st <Rii^i< ^3tfiW STT^T At this stage looking to tlrje reply filed by the respondents No.l and 2, counsel for the appellant/pet^-ioner submitted that if the respondents are not 90109 to forcibly disposs^ss the appellant from the land in dispute without following procedure as €|stablished under the law and in case the land of the appcltant is require by the respondents, they will strictly proceed in accordance with \w/, l^e petitioner will have no grievance. Both the counsel agreed that in view |of the statement made in para 3 of the reply of r&spondents No.l and2 t|ie writ petition No.772/2003 may also be withdrcwn to this Court and it ma^ be disposed of. Accordir^ly, the writ peljition No.772/2003 is withdrawn to this Court. In view of the statement of the reply we dispose of the wr Tiade by respondents No.l and 2 in para 3 it petition and this appeal with a direction that the respondents will not ta|<e forcible pos^esdion of the appellant's kirwl without followin9 the due ^rocess of lcw. Accordingly, the order pa$$ed by the learned Single Jud^e merges with this order and therefore, the writ petition and the appeal s^and disposed of. Sd/- Chief Justice 8d/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge