1 2025:CGHC:19343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 965 of 2019 1 - Smt. Maya Sharma W/o Shri Anil Sharma Aged About 61 Years R/o Near Fauja Singh Katal, H. No. 866, St. No. 08, Model Town, Junwani, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sub Divisional Officer Sub Division No. 03, Public Works Department, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smriti Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit Smriti Nagar, Through Chairman Smriti Grah Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Smriti Nagar, Junwani Tehsil And District Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.04.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in reply, learned counsel for the State has admitted the fact that the impugned notice for vacating and removing the shop for the widening of the road was issued inadvertently. He would submit that as the State has accepted its mistake, the petition may be disposed of in light of the pleading made by the State. 2. Learned counsel for the State would endorse the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that, in para 4 of the reply, the State has admitted the fact that the impugned notice was issued inadvertently, and same has been withdrawn. 5. Para 4 of the reply of the State is reproduced herein below: “4. It is respectfully submitted that, the aforesaid notice (Annexure P/1) has been inadvertently issued to the petitioner by the answering respondent No. 2 and no any damage or demolition has been caused top the shop of the petitioner. It is further submitted that, the work of the proposed road widening is being done in accordance with the map, in which, the petitioner's shop does not touch. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the answering respondents (State) and the instant petition is devoid of merits, deserve to be dismissed.” 3 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as the impugned notice has already been withdrawn. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi