fis I'S&'?"1is •;&;:-•'. •SSm BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P. fC) N0. %b50 of2Qll PETITIONER : Usha Verma wife of Rakesh Verma, •>\vv - < n^^' a9ed about: 35 years' R/0- Subhash ^v.' y"" •.;'.A? w*a" ^ ~rjy""' .u->tf* Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tahsil •-" ^•'•^\^..ri>""' c\Sslv,i5]r^ and District Raipur (C.G.) ..^•s^.^ >: ^'yy:^ -*••''' ^•^"" ^VERSUS RESPONDENTS i^R^ "''^ C ,n'."" -:' ''>>:;•:< Qp f.s. "^^s"—- l./^" State of Chhattisgarh, Through : ,The Secretary, Urban Administration Department, D.K.S-.Bhawan, Raipur C.G.) / 2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3.' Municipal Corporation, Through Its Commissioner, Raipur (C.G.) ^' • !. , 4. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ^ 5. Nazul Officer, Raipur, District Raipur ^ (C.G.) 6. Zone Commissioner, Zone No.4, Sports Complex, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) s' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER 1 11 HIGH COURT OF CHHA1TISGARH AT BILASPUR WRlT TinON (C)No. 2600 of 2011 L;siis. V^iiiisi. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ot'Chliattissarh & Others. WsSlI PEHTION U^DER AR'nCUi 226 OF IHE CONSTTTijTIQNOFJNDIA sB: Hon'bie Sin'i Satish K. Asuhotri. J. Present: Sliri K.Pradhan. Advocate for the petrtioners. Shri V.V.S.Moortliy, Deputy Advocate General forthe StaSe Slin H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswai, Advocate for the respondeiit-Municipal Corporation, Raipur. ,) (Passed on 12 W-rf nn 1'5m-IQT !~,'i'1t./!:m^ '?ni1't yy^u \}ii ji.^.f uuy ui. iviuy, AiVii^ Ainit Leamed couasel appeanng tor the respondent-Mumeipal Coiporation, submits that tliere is no cdntemplation to demolish the disputed stfucture of the petitioner, sitiiated in Ward No. 43, Mother Teresa Ward, Plot No. 50/1, Devadera, area 558 sq.fl. Subhasli Nagar, Telebandha, Raipur. However, whenever it is contemplated or decided to take anv action for demolition of tlie said sfn.icture- the petitioner woiiid be siven a proper show cause nolice and aftei considering the replv ofthe petitioner, action shall betaken, ifanv. In view of the fbregomg, according to leanicd counsel for the petitioners, notiiing sundves for adjudication in this petition. Accordingly, the vvrit petition is disposed of: Sd/- SatishK.A8^0tri Judge 1