\. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition fC.) NO.^^S /201 PETITIONER VERSUS Raju Lal S/o Ram Kumar, aged about 28 years, Caste Chandrnahu, R/o Village Bade Gantuli, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigdrh (C.G.) RESPONDENTS : ^1;:^ ^^ .^"\^<~\ ^ »' .eS'^.-••^ a^*" .•^-' -3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya Raipur. District Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Sarpanch of Gram. Panchayat, Bade Gantuli, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERAR_TICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The ne-titio.' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (0 No. 6763 of2011 Raju Lal. RESPONDENTS VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri U.R.Koshaley, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. lto3. ORDER (Passed on 18th day ofNovember, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a wriVdirection to the respondents to issue appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to settle the petitioner on the site i.e. Bade Gantuli or in altemative, direct the respondents to provide altemate accommodation before removing him. 2. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 01.11.2011 (Annexure P/3) to submit his response before a decision to remove fhe stmcture constructed over plot No. 71/1, admeasuring 30 X 20 ft. at village Gantuli Bade, Block Sarangarh, District Raigarh, by the Gram Panchayat, Gantuli Bade, is taken, as the same was unauthorized and illegal. Without responding to the notice and putting forward his case, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to restrain the authorities from not proceeding with the notice and not removing the stmcture. 3. Be that as it may, these petition involve disputed question offacts asto whether the construction over the dispute land is authorized or unauthorized. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the above stated disputed facts on the basis of averments made in the pleadings. Thus, no interference is warranted at this stage. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to put forward his case before the concemed authority, if so advised, and thereafter, the respondent authority may pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNMORI Judge