^' C^Zo^/ SlngleBench IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONERS ^ y ^-^ ^^ ^'/w ^•/../ ^y W.P. C. N0. 3\9^ OF 2011 1. Bhupendra Singh Thakur S/o Munshiram Thakur, aged about-42 years R/o KigJif side of Kabir Chouk, Banji Pali, Raigaj'h , ^Tahsil 85 Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2» Bhupesh Singh Thakur S/o Munshiram Thakur, aged about-40 years R/o Right side of Kabir Chouk, Banji Pali, Raigarh , Tahsil &, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1.' State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Nagriya Prashan Awam Vikas Bibhag, ^D.K<S. Bhavan,Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Engineer, Gramin Yantrlki Sewa Vikas, Conimissioner Office, Raip)ur JC.G.) 3. CollectGr, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). ^'..- . . -- ... . . ~-, 4. " Comraissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh , Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 CONSTITUTIOH OF INDIA ^ HIGH COUR'I' OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILA8PUR WMTPETmON fC) No, 3197 of2011 PETITIONERS . .RESPONDENTS Bhupendra Siiigli Thak'ur & Aiiother. VERSU8 State ofChliattisgarh & C^thers. AlTllt VvTJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITU'nON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble SSui Sattsh K. Agmhoti'i, J. Present: 8.1m M.K.Smha, Advocate for the petitioner. Stm Amn Sao, Govemm.ent Advocate for thc State. Shii Pankaj Agi'awal, Advocate fbr the respo.ndent No. 4. O.RDERIOBAL) (Passed on 10al day ofAugust, 2011) 1, At the very outset, Slii'i Agrawal, leamed counsel appear.mg for 'the respondent No, 4 submits that no steps for demolishing the strocture on the land in question shall be taken without affbrd.mg proper oppoilmiity of hearmg to the petitioner. Since no notices have beeii issued till date, at this stage, it is not necessary to go into ftirther facts ofthe case, 2. Shri Sinl'ia, leamed coun.sel appeai'itig for the petitioner submit&:-- that the above submission may be laken as an uiideitalcing on behalf ofk'tfie respondeiit No,4 and the respotident authorities may be directed not to take any actioii without consideriiig the response of 'the petitioner, m accordaiice vvith law. He fartlier submits that liberty may be graiited to the petitioner to take recourse to competeiit jurisdictioiial civil coiirt, 3,, Iti view ofthe above submissioii made by counsel for the parties, it is made clear tfaat the respondent au'thorities s.ha.11 not demolish aiiy structure without afibrdiiig proper opportumty of hearing to the petitioner, i,e. mimmum 15 days time to respond to 'the notice, if issued by the respotident-Corporation and without considering the case ofthe petitioner in accordance witli law. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is ctisposed ofreservmg liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to competentjurisdictionial civil court. 5. No order asto costs, Satish K. Agnihotri Judge