IN THB HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (ClNo.^^/0, /2011 PBTITIONERS RESPONDENTS : ^ ^2%y:^> l..^g^^ .3fT"~ ....••^A ^" Naresh Kumar S/o. Dhwajaram Patel, Aged about 30 years, R/o. near Turki Talab, Raipur Road, Saranggarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1) ^he State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2^ Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sarangagarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) 3) Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar, Panchayat Saranggarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PEn'nONj.TNDER ARTICLE-226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA —a» ^ /T/> HIGH COIJRT OF CHRATTISGARH AT BiIASPiJK 'WRIT PETmON (OVo. 6712 of2011 PETmONER ; Viiw K.mar. VRRSIJS E-ESPONDENTS : The Sto.te of ChliatS.isgarh & (-Xhers. WRIT PETmQN (QNo. 6713 of2011 PETmONER : Naresh Kinnar, VRRSIJS R-ESPONDENT8 : TSie State ofChha'i'tisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION fONo, 6714 of2011 PETITIQNER ; Ashish Asrawal. VRRSIJg RESPONDENTS ; The gtateQfChhatlis;Birh&Olbsrs. ^'T~i.!~!^'rr'l"ns ,f~^->.'r s'~/'~v\ '>" . ^/^-s f f'• WRIl' PE'miC)N (0 iNo. 6715 ot'2011 PETmONER : Sbaiiesh Aerawal. VRRSIJS RESPONDENT8 : The State ofChhatfisearh& C'thers^ WRIT PETITION (C) No. 6716 of2011 PETmQNER : Aiav Kumar. VRRSIJS RESPONDENT8 : The StiaeQfChliaUisearfi&Others. WRIT PETniON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 'FHE CONS'fmjTION OFINDIA SH: Hoii'ble Shri Satish K. Apnihotri. .T. 'resent: Stwi Snashank Thakur, Advocate fbr t'ne petitioner. Slm Suniesh Bajaj, GovsiTHiietit Advocate forthe State/ resoondem No. 1 and 2. Shri R.S.Paitii, Advoijaic Ibr Ihe respondsnl No. 3. ^ 1"^ I? .13 a^. 3 j? ji-'; r (Passed on 16 da'y' ofNovember, 2011) "1. gince common fa.cts a.nd nuestion of }aw are mvolved in these petitions, 'thus, thev are beiag dispQsed ofbv this coiiUTion order. Bv ihis netition. the oetitioner seeks to aiia-sh t.he imnuened notice dated 02.11,2011 (Aimcx'jre P/l) issued bvthe resnoiid^nt. No. -3_ i-.Q._ Chief Municinal OfBcer. Nagar Pancha.vat. Saranaarh. wherebv the ""s.;.- :-... "I ''••' i-'-^-.Ti'- .'.? .^y .^/ ^ Aimt 2 Detitioners have beeii asked t.o reiiiovc their stnict:ure si'tuoted over the laiid in disuiji.t.ed- alle^sd to h3.ve becn constnjct.ed illeg%llv. 3, Shri l^iakiir. leam^d co'usisel a????earin2 for tlie resncctive nctitioaers siAbmits tha.'t the Detitioiiers ar©iii Dossession ol tli^ la.nd iu di^o'ute fi"?r t.he iast 15 vea.rs. Thus. thev caimot be thrown out on the basis ofthe a,bov§iioties. 4, On ttie other hand. Sliri Patei. Isamed coimsel aDoearins for the resDondent No. 3 Subuiits that for the riunr'ose ofwidsmns ofthe roaA thc iiiiautliorized oecijDatiQii mav be dlQQied imdsi tlie Drovisions €?f Scction 223 of the Madhva Pradesh/Cliha.ttissarh MimiciDalities Act. 1961 (for shof't 'theAct. ] 961 "i. Tfae imDuaied notice is in accordance with law and valid. 5. Shri Patel fiirther subinits that the issue involved Ln this netition is saiiarelv covered bv order dated 1-5.11.2011 Dassed in W.P.ifC'! No. 6547 of 2011 i.S??:". Shcfntl Bai v. State GfChhattissarh & Othe''s'i and other cQruiectfidmatters. 6. Shri Thakur. does not controvert. tlie above submission and siibniita that t.hcse Det.itioB? m^.v also be disposed ofiii t.he tenns ofthe c'rder riassed in. S/nt. ShtTri.tt Bcjf {suvw.'), 7. In view of tlie a.bove. all these netitioas are dismissed a.s not ma.inlaina.ble. However. the resoonderu. No. 3 i.n. Chief Muriicioal Oflicer. Na.gar Paachavat. Saranearh is directed to take st.eos in ^ accordasiee with la.w- affi^rdins reasonable o??portii2iitvT of hearing t.o the Detitioners a.nd examinc the case ofthe oetitioners. before Dassins the aooroDriate order. No order ast.o costs, J-" ^; ' Sd/- Sf^Sll R ANGNIHOM ^ Judge