Smt. Khairunisha Farishta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2393 of 2017

1. Smt. Khairunisha Farishta W/o Shri Pappu Farishta Aged About 50 Years Occupation Owner Of Daily Newspaper Janta Se Rishta, R/o C4, Ravi Nagar, E A C Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Pappu Farishta S/o Late G A Farishta, Aged About 54 Years Occupation Owner Of Daily Newspaper Janta Se Rishta, R/o C- 4, Ravi Nagar, E A C Colony, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , General Administration Department , Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Secretary, Urban Administration And Development , Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through The Commissioner , Municipal Corporation, Near Kalibadi Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate.

For State : Shri Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 5 : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 30/08/2017 Heard.

(1) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is threat of demolition as has been published in the newspaper and the application for regularization has already been filed and till the same is decided, the demolition may not be carried out.

(2) Learned counsel for resondent 5 would submit that the regularization application has been filed and the same is under consideration. He further submits that the demolition would not be carried out till the regularization application is decided on merits.

(3) Considering the above submission made, it is observed that till the application for regularization of construction is decided, further demolition shall not be carried out in respect of disputed constructions. (4) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-