HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.( S) No. 4882of2006 PeCtioners 1. 2. 3. Mohit Kumar Eteshmukh, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Ummed Sinsh Deshmy . Angarak Deo, Aged about 22 years, S/o Mohit Kumar Deshmukh. BharaS, Aged about 24 years, D/o Moh'it Kumar DeshmuMi, A!) rssidsnt o? : H.I.G. -23, Padmanabhpur, Durg. Tahsii and DistrtctDurg(C.G:) Versus 1. Municipal Corporation. Bhilai, Through: Commissioner, Municfpaf Corporatton Bhilai, Tahsi) & Dfetrirt -Durg(C.G.) State of Chhaffisgarh, Througft : Cottecter Durg, Tahsi! & District Durg (p.G.) Tahsiidar, Durg, Tahsif - Durg 2. C^THE WRST PEimON UNDER ARTiCLES 22S < COSTITUTiONOF JNDIA SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice SaSsh K. Agnihotri Shri V. G. Tamaskar, Advocate for ihepeKionere. Shri H. E. Aganfi?aL Senior Acivocats v»'ithMiss Sangsete ?i4ishra, rte for $hs respaident No.1 . Shri V. V. S. Murthy. Depu{yAdvocate Genera! v/ifh Miss Deepafi Pandey.PaneI Lawyerforttie respondente No. 2 and 3. Q R D ER (Passed on this 19<tl dsy of Aprii, 2007) Ad'.'ocate fi 1. Learned counsei appsaring for the pstfr.onsrs submite that ttie Municipai CorporaSon, Bhiiai has instaited a hu'bs-ws!! on the private iand of fr.e petiSoner. 2. Lsarned counse! appearing for the respondent No.'! categoricaily submjts that the Municipal CorporaSon, Bhilai is not claiming any ownership on the private land of frie pelitioner wherein tube-wetl is instaiied. Further, he submfe that it was not instatled by the ^ %?1?%%^^^I respondent No.1 and ttie respondent No.1 has no right over the said tube-welt. It is for the petitioners to use it or close it. 3. tn view of the categorical statement made by tearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 , notiiing suivives in this matter. 4. Consequently, the petifion is disposed of. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge