^ ^oY^ ^' 'n ~\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Ci N0.6420 OF 2006 PETmQN£R RESPONDENTS Shiv Kumar Upadhyay, son of Shyamji Upadhyay, aged about 44 yeare, Resident of Pratappur Naka, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, De(»rtment of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2: The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (CG). 3. The Nazool Officer, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja (CG). 4. The Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, Surguja (CG), through the Commissioner. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shrt Bhaskar Pyasi, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amrito Das, Panel Lawyer for the State. None for the respondent No.4, despite service of notice. 1. 2. ORALORDER (Passed on this 29m day of July, 2009) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession over Uie plot No.2010/4 and the structure standing on the said plot. 3. Notice was issued on 21-11-2006. It was duly served on alt the respondents. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent No.4. On eariier occasion also i.e. on 3-7-2009 non appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the respondent No.4. 4. The issue involved in the present case is asto whether possession of the petitioner on nazul plot No.2010/4 with the structure standing thereon may be disturbed without issuing a notice, affording ^: 'i'il— Gowri < opporfcinity of hearing to the petitioner and without following due process of law. Having regard to the facts situation of the case, particulariy considering the non-appearance of the respondent No.4,1 am of the view that the respondent authorities should be directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner on the petition schedute land without affording an opportunity of hearing and without following due prwess of law. In view of foregoing, without expressing any opinion on the rights and title of the petitioner on the petition schedule land, the petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge '-DTiii 'SFtEuiS^