← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1251/2016disposed off

Mahesh Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-05-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1251 of 2016

1. Mahesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Mayaram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Kota Gudhiyari Main Road, Kota, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattsigarh

2. Smt. Soorja Bai Verma, W/o Late Shri K.C. Verma, Aged About 65 Years R/o Kurud, Tehsil And District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh,

3. Smt. Sumitra Khobragade, W/o Nutan Khobragade, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Kota, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Town And Country Planning, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattigarh

2. Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Through Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 8, Raipur, District Raipur Chattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.

For State : Mr. B. Gop Kumar, Dy. A.G. on advance copy For Corporation : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate on advance copy S.B.:

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 11/05/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners on apprehension that the respondents may proceed against the petitioners without proper scrutiny, enquiry of their documents of title, building permission etc.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2- Corporation submits that the apprehension of the petitioners is not well founded. The Corporation has given notices dated 07.04.2016 & 08.04.2016 (Annexure P/1) only to make proper enquiry, scrutiny of all aspect of title, building permission and construction of the petitioners.

3.

In view of the statement which is made by learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation and that notices dated 7.04.2016 & 08.04.2016 only require the petitioners to place relevant documents before the Corporation Authority and no adverse orders against the petitioners have been passed, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petition has filed on mere apprehension without any adverse orders against the petitioners. 4.

It goes without saying that pursuant to the notice, all aspect of the matter shall be duly looked into and examined before proceeding further in the matter. 5.

The petition is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen