//T^\ 1 'i< "% 1 V^^J "•^^^^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioners 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. W.P. (a No. 732 of 2009 Asfaque Ahmd Khan, S/o, Late Mohammed Yaar Khan, aged about 52 years. Smt. Aziz Jahida Khan, W/o Asfaque Ahmed Khan, aged about 46 years. Smt. Kamla Dondgavkar, Wd/o Late L.C.Dondgavkar, aged about 75 years. Smt. Madhuri Bajpai, Wd/o Late Bhanushankar Bajpai, aged about 62 years. Smt. Kumud Patnaik, W/o C.L.Patnaik, aged about 65 years. Vijay Shankar Trivedi, S/o Late Dayashankar Trivedi, aged about 55 years. Ajay Shankar Trivedi, S/o Late Dayashankar Trivedi, aged about 50 years. Kumar Trivedi, S/o Late Dayashankar Trivedi, aged about 57 yars. Ashok Anand, S/o Late Devraj Anand, aged about 56 years. Virendra Jari, S/o Late Kundan Jari, aged about 51 yars. All above R/o Nayapara, Akaswani Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Nagriya Prashasan, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, through : Chief Municipal Officer, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Corporation, jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Nazul Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 and 4to6. ORDER (Passed on this 6th Day of Febmaiy, 2009) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are owners of the disputed shops and houses. Petitioners have been threatened that their houses and shops "V. 4. Thakur -^ ^ -. may be demolished for expansion of roads. As on date, no formal order has been passed. Learned counsel submits that there is an oral direction. Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State submits that there is no order to demolish the structure and this petition is premature as on the basis of oral statement no case can be made out. Be that as it may, if the Municipal Corporation proposes to demolish any house or shop in possession of the petitioners, the same may be done after following the due process of law and passing a proper order. In view of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge