^ r»^^_ SE%GN ^ .£jy linai 3 \^.:^F'j^'-^r IN THE HIGH GOURTOF' CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) WRrF PETmQNfClNO.'^r. /5007.^-0-Z7-g PETITIQNER: y^-^. ^-"^-^' ......<i^P- 'iP-C ^$SM, ..^"^:. ff RESPONDENTS ^ /^ Kumar Dhar Smha, S/o - Shri Puran Lal Smha, Aged about - 32 years, R/o - Post Ss Tahsil — Beria, Dist, - Durg Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. Nagar Panchayat, Berla, Tahsil - Berla, District—Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Pairchayat Berla, DiStrict Dyrg, C&hattisgarh. : ^i^ :^'r^y ^^^'~ o' ^E^£^ )!\%^ /^. State ofChhattisgafh, aAT<::-'\*^r*@(. :' ^: - ._. .:'- -•' ^•;~ '._'-. ^•- .- •' Through:;SeeretaryRufgl:,aM3' Urban ©eyelopmentDepaFtmeat; Departn'ient of Ministry IXK.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Gfahattisgarh. . WRTT PETmON UNDE^ARneLEi226 OE eDNSTmjT(0 <5F;i[NDI^ "rli3BBEBj A... ..-—- k / .* •""S.I. .XfiHC-22 SD^I^T R-fi'* sn^i 5(TI-iicti -yfgff 'S^S •^Mtv\tl, e)Tflti'l(o, faclKiy wwiT!»»ira» _.w... 3T^T xn^ It^-q^/Zv^? 1-1""^ 200 sn^r ^R'iw'HftcT SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan 16-03-2011 Shri C. J. K. Rao, counsel for Ms. Sareena Khan, counsel fo Shri S. K. Mishra, Panel Lawy< • Heard. This petition has been flled dated 31-07-2007 (Annexure P-4), b} to remove his encroachment. the Case of the petitioner is th< various plotsfor construction of One Dhruv Kumar was also one of a his plot to the petitioner for a sum of then the petitioner Js occupying and r Learned counsel for the be treated as encroacher and the p premium to the Nagar Panchayat. On the other hand, learned submitted that the petitioner has the original allottee had no authoritytt approval or sanction of the Nagar| petitioner has no authority and h^ therefore, he is not entitled to protecti ^^ ^ '*!'i|trl''fl-< IWcff ^ fezt <fa«i< ^sipgirsn^i Shrivastava, J. petitioner. respondentsNo.1 &2. r for the State/respondent No.3. y the petitioner aggrieved by notice which, the petitioner has been asked <t the Nagar Panchayat had allotted sm^ll shops/stalls for running business. llottee, but later on, Dhruv Kumar sold l|?s.12,001/- in the year 1989 and since inning the shop. petitic|ner submits that the petitioner cannot )^titioner is willing to pay the rent and counsel for'respondents No.1 & 2 unaijithorizedly occupied the premises and tj; sale the plot to the petitioner without Panchayat. It is submitted that the js also not paying premium, and pis possession. [^^fet ^6 XI-HC;-22 311^1^1 h-u^i 311^1 *^T^ -yfl^ A.. Tumane 'ssr ^ii<<id^, ^til'y'iri, r»«-ii'My _^:.:P.CC2NU^D!^? WRWI g»Mi<^i 200 i^^a' sn^i ?fi'iw;sfl^i •l Be that as it may, it would respondent No.1 either for allotnjient occupation. The respondents No.1 decision thereon. It is made clear that this entitlement of the petitioner to respondents No.1 & 2 would be at with their own rules and regulations. With theaforesaid observatio •*wfd41-i tiwcil''?'fe'st <ra]t$i< ^siPgiTan^t be open for the petitioner to apply to of plot or regularization of his & 2 shall consider the same and take ;ourt has not commented upon the ^et allotment or otherwise and the liberty to take decision in accordance pi, the petition is finally disposed off. Sd-/ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge [•^^fe^ \3