Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 21]

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Sunita Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh 6 Wpc/1355/2018 ... on 10 May, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                               1

                                                                                 NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           Writ Petition (C) No. 1329 of 2018

       Smt. Sunita Agrawal W/o Shri Sanjay Agrawal, aged about 48 years, R/o
       Nehru Nagar, West Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                         ---- Petitioner

                                          Versus

     1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh,
        Urban Administration & Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
        Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh (C.G.)

     2. Collector, Durg, District Durg.

     3. Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

     4. Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, through Commissioner, District Durg (C.g.)

     5. Building Construction Officer, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg
        (C.G.)

                                                                     ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, senior Advocate with Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate.

For Respondents/ State : Mr. R.N. Pusty, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/05/18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner's application for regularization has been rejected by the competent authority against which appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 9(2) of the Chhattisgarh Anadhikrit Vikas Ka Niyamitikaran Act, 2002 along with application for interim relief is pending consideration before the Commissioner and meanwhile, notice has been issued by respondent No. 5 on 06.04.2018 to demolish the construction made by the petitioner.

2. Be that as it may, the Commissioner, Raipur Division is directed to 2 consider and dispose of the said appeal expeditiously. It is directed that petitioner and the Corporation shall maintain status quo with regard to the suit property as the Corporation has simply stated that construction should not have been made by the petitioner.

3. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

SD/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka