a? 1 W12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION‘NO k ) 139 OF 2007 PETITIONER / SmT. Swarnlafa Naidu, widow 0f Late T. Ashok Rao Naidu, aged abouT 45 years, resident of Byron Bazar, Raipur VS RESPONDENTS / 1. Raipur Municipal Corpora‘rion, Raipur, a body consfiTuTed under The q Q A“ /3. T. Prakash Rao Naidu, son of Late T. Bhaskari Rao' Naidu, resident o‘f Byron Bazar,' Raipur. / WRIT ‘PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \>\~’W relevant provisions of Municipal Corporation Act, . having its principal office at Malviya Road, ' Raip‘ur, through the Commissioner, Raipur Municipal Corpgration, Raipur.\ /2. The Town & Country Planning Department, . Raipur Municipal Corporation, Malviya Road, Raipur.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 189 of2007 PETITIONER : Smt. Swamlata Naidu. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Raipur Municipal Corporation & Others. WRI'I‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Kshitij Shanna, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri H.B.Agawal, Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri S.S.Rajput, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 18 dayof June, 2010) It is a dispute wherein despite the objection raised by the petitioner, a sanction for erection of a building on the dispute land has been gamed by the respondent No. 1 and 2 to the respondent No. 3. It is brought to the notice ofthis Court that there is a statutory provision of appeal under section 293(3) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal i Corporation Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act, 1956 ’), wherein any person aggrieved by the order ofthe Commissioner in respect of prohibition of erection or re-erection of buildings without permission, may appeal to the disuict court Within thirty days of such order in the manner prescribed therefore and the decision ofthe district court shall be final. 3. Shri Shanna,- learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission ofthis Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to take recourse to alternative appellate forum as available under the provisions of section 293(3) of the Act, 1956. Shri Shanna further submits that the delay, if any, in approaching the District Court may be condoned by this Court. ‘ l i “It, i l i 7?? Shri Agrawal and Shri Rajput, leamed counsel appearing for the respective respondents submit that if the appeal is filed within 30 days from today, the parties will not raise the issue of limitation before the appellate court. Having regard to the aforestated statements made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. If the petitioner files an appeal before the District Court within a period of 30 days hom today, the question of limitation, if any, shall not be raised by the parties Having regard to hirther fact that the matter has been pending and the status qua with regard to the land in dispute was granted on 13.02.2007, the same shall remain in operation for a further period of one week from today. Any observations made hereinabovea if any, may not come in way of Amit deciding the matter on merit. certified COPY’ tOday. l Sdl— l Satish K. Agnihotri ‘3 Judge