HIGH COURT OF CHHA‘I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR \VRIT PETITION (C) N0. 2577 01101)? PETITIONER : Smt. Urmila Agawal, aged about 45 years, Wd/o. Late Shanker Lal Agrawa}, Occupation Business, R/o Sattigudi Chauk, Raigarh Tahsil and District Raigaxh (C.G.) VERSUS : 1) State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Reveiiue Department, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya: Raipur (C.G.) 3) Nagar Palika Nigam, Raigarh (C.G.) Through Conmajssioner WRIT PETETION UNDER AR’l‘ICLE 226 OF THE CONS’I‘ITUHON OF INDIA RESPONDENTS 2) Nazul Officer, Raigarh (C.G.} SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotrihJ. Present: Smt. Hamida Siddique, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the sTate/respondents 1 & 2 Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (l’assed on 7m day of August, 2007) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at her request, was permitted to delete the prayer clause No. 7.1 Vide order dated 18.7.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been in possession of the disputed property on the basis of Patta granted to her father-in—law namely Shri Kashi Lal Agrawal in the year 1974. Even prior to that, they had been in peaceful possession ofthe disputed land since 1953. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No. 2 be directed to decide the right ofthe petitioner in the pending Revenue Case No. 10 A- 4/2004-05, which has been pending for about last two years, expeditiously. In the meantime, the petitioner be permitted to continue in possession ofthe 2 Cb ’ said property, t0 which the Earned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection. ate and decide the ase No. 10 A‘4/2004—05 as expeditiously as possible, pending Revenue C preferably ner shali not be The respondent No. 2 is accordingly directed to adjudic within a yeriod of 8 weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. 1n the meantime, the possession of petitio disturbed til} the decision ofihe above revenue case. With the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ‘ Satish K.Agnihotri ‘ Judge ‘ t Sdl- Amit