^ c\<'^~ IN THE fflGH COIIRT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR W. P. N0. 14^5 OF 2004 ;7 PETITIONERS 1. RAMPALKASHYAP,S/OSHRI AVSAAN KASHYAP, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. ^^^ . >"^^ ^••^.^^•'"'* t^^^S-^"" T<es°A .--tf"" A»v«A HANUMLW KASHYAP @ SURAJ ^gl'JftMfcLftL' KASHYAP, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. THE ABOVE NAMED PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENT OF NEAR DEVAN CHAAL, CHINGRAJPARA, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT BILASPUR, (C.G.). V E R S U S tiiy.i- RESPONDENTS ;y^' .--—.-.-...-,.^ <i- ^ 3. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH: THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, D.K.S. BHAWAN RAIPUR, (C.G.). THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT BILASPUR, (C.G.) THE TAHSDL-DAR, BILASPUR TAHSIL AND DISTRICT BILASPSUR, (C.G,). MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILASPSUR THROUGH: THE COMMISSIONER, BILASPUR. RAMASHRAYA, S/0 [ SHRI .AVSAAN KASHYAP, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, a^J ; A,;:;-;i. :.'j;''{ i.y^f.'SSa^S Lt?s K: ;...<;;>.. ...; 't^^'. •• 6. RAMAVATAR S/0 SHRI AVSAAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. THE ABOVE NAMED RESPONDENT ^. N0. 5 AND 6 ARE RESIDENT, OF CHINGRAJPARA, TAHSIL AND DISTMCT BILASPUR, (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •*'" -^ XI-HC-22 ii-cc) ^iHM^, a-ulo'is, Riwwy <fl*-iwr gffli<» ^_.^.:.f?.:..&?.8..-i!rf..£J iy'—-"""-"-"-7'""'"'^200 ^ sii^r'qir f^*li5t) ^H^iT 5t)iti^» yiia <Hi^ ^tai^ ^tt^ <»I<t?<t<il<i ^I-M^I? ^ is^ ^^l< ^3ri?BP? SH^T 07.05.2004 Shri R.M. Pandey, 001 Shri Vlnod Shrivastav, tfisenor the petitioners, ^, Govt. Advocate for respondents No.l to3. Shri Saajay K. AgrawE tor respondent No.4. Application for urgent Wlth tlie consent of and 8hri F'rateck Smha, counsel fiearing is aUowed. tjtie parties, the matter is flnally heard. It is submitted that sHow cause noticc has been issued tiy (he TeIisUdar to tlie peqUoners on (tie ground ttiat ttiey have encroached upon the 11 aiid tliey liave beeii directet^ It is contended by thel Stnd belonguig to the Govemment lo appeai- lieforc tlie TeIisUdar. Sfate coiinsd that withoiit filing reply to the show cause ^iotice before the TahsUdar, the petitioners rushed to thls show cause notice is not uii Shri Sanjay K. Agranj ICourt and ttds petltion agatnst jintainable. fal, counsel far respondcnt No.4 also contends tliat show ca< petitloner ond thepetitione^ grounds by fillng reply be^ tise notice ha.s been issued to the uiay raise alt thpse objectione / bre TehsUdar and the Tehsildar shall decide the matter in ^coordance with law. He further reUed on a judgment repo^-ted in JT 2004(1) SC 206 fThe - {'I^^s^ r XI-HC-22 311^1 °bl l<-<i<*i SD^f **<(* tilid .\v ^^ ^<)-iii?i''i, ^Til-y'ito, fadi'yy liini »*i)<»> sn^T ^wiwoft? -a.- ]n pcti|tioncr Spedal nirRction and Anr. Vji. Anr.) Havtng considered the case and inaterial on record, thc rcply be filed by thc gromids mentioned herein reply is flled, it shall be consj opportunity of hearing, on itsj law. With this observation, Certifled copy as per rul^s <<>w(<'i'fl'iwvS"^ ft'st'^i^regiT ^T <HPd*i •ri^a Mohd. Ohiilam Ghoiise and ^cts and clrcumstances of the the opinion of this Court, let raising the objcctions / bfctbre the TehsUdar and tt' the ^dered and decided after giving lown merits in accordance wlth ttjiis petition stands disposed of. sd/- Fakhruddin BljUijaij— I^^Jl^UBMmCtota-tl^iuL^teaEtUEaa