:s» r/ HiGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BSLASPUR fRIT PETITiON N0. 3185 OF 2SQ6 IS. phatia & Company Petrol Pump Partnership Firm, through its partner Hardeep Singh Bhatia, S/o Late B.S. Bhatia, ags 49 years, Oid Bus Stend, Raipur (CG). m Municipai Corporatton, Raipur, through its Commissioner, Malviya Road, Raipur (CG). te ot cnnattisgarn, Secretary, Department of Loca! Seif Government, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG). 3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Regiona! Office Madina Building, above Viiaya Bank, Kutehary Chowk, Raipur (CG). 4. Coiiector, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition ynder Articte 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Hon'bie Shri Sansh K. Aanihotri, J. Shri Jitendra Paii, counsei for the petttioner Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate wlth Advocste for the respondent No.1 Shri Aiok Bakshl, Govt. Advocate for the Shri Bhishma Kinger, counsel for the Ms. Rinki Tamrakar, State. (Passed on this 8 day of Decsmber, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner chaltenges the legaiity and vaiidity of the notice/order dated 9-6-2006 (Annexure-P/21) passed by the Revenue CTicer, Municipai Corporation, Raipur, whereby the petitioner was called upon to vacate the Sand/plot No.11/2 Block No.94, area 1250 sq.ft., near Stand, Raipur, on the grounds 2) By fiSing the return. the respondent No,3.»'Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited submitted that initiaiiy of the petition scheduie piot/land was granted to the pi'edecessor-in-tltie Rajab A.ii Farishta. On 5-9-1972 Raiab Aii Farishta created a sub-Sease of the Sand in favour of M/s -3-' tess*. Ig ^ "I J 'k^.^1'.^ v Caitex (india) Limlted. Mfe Caltex (India) L.irnjted had put Mr. B.S Bhatia in possession of the said land to nin a petro! pump under the deslership agreement. Running the petrol pump in the name & style of M/s B.S. Bhatia & Company was accordingly operated. Sadruddin was granted lease-hold rights on 15-6-1979 upon the demise of Rajab ASi Farishtha, the respondent No.3 is the sub-tenant of Sadruddin. The tease was never terminated. Sadruddin instituted a civil suit being civil suit No.21-A/99 (Sadruddin Farishta vs. Municipal Corporation, Raipur & Others) on 1-7-1%9 in the Court of Second Additionai District Judge, Raipur for deciaration and permanent injunction against She ^4unicipal Corporation, Raipur, Shri Baidev Sing'n Bhatia and after his death hls iegai representatives and Hindustan Petroieum Corporation Limited. The injunction was issued restralning the respondent No.1 a.nd the petitioner from dispossessjng or pursuing the rescission of tho tease grantecj in favour of Sadruddin on the subject ptot. The suit is stlii pending consideration wherein the petitioner is a party/defendant. Admittedly, the suit bearing civii suit No.21-A/99 is pending consideration before the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur. In respect of t'ne land in dispute, the prayer in t'ne suit is as under: "(a) Deciaring that the iease hoid rights of the plaintiff in respect of the suit plot are vaiid and still subsisting and that the ietters dates 2-4-99 (Second April Ninety Nine) and 11-6-99 (Eieventh June Ninety Nine) issued by the defendant No.1, the order by the defendant No.1 (one) aliegediy on 9-7- and ths agreement allegedly dated 12-7-99 granting iease ofthe suit piot sn favour of the said S. Baldev Singh BhaSia, are without any legal authority and sanction and hence unenforceable and inyaSid. (b) Restraining the defendants by »ermanent injunction from invalidating, interferina with or disturbing c iease-hold interests of the plalntiff in respect of the suit piot without due process of iaw." 3) With regard to the same iand, the r'etitioner has filed the present petltion seekina foilowina directions: ^^'^ <?'"'"% "'%, 6&»-i" 1g ^' •»a t ?». ~^9 ^^ 7.1 To kindiy caii for the records from the 7.2 To kindiy issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned notice/order dated 9-6-2006 of flie respondent Municipai Corporation. 7.3 To kindiy issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent State and the Municjpal Corporation to perform aii iegai forFnaSities with regard to execution of the iease deed with the petittoner subject to the finai decision in the aforesaid civi! suit. 7.4 To kindly direct the respondents Municipat Corporation and the State not to interfere with the smooth operation of the petrot pump of the petstioner. 7.5 To kindh may be deemed fit and just including awarding of the cost to the petitioner." 4) 1-eamed counsei appearing on behaif of the petitioner submits that the Municipal Corporation has aiready granted iease on payment of premium and ground rent on 24-10-1999 (Annaxure-P/15) and thereafter by •nt order dated 9-6-2006, which is Impugnecl herein, the petjtioner has been a'lrected to vacate the said piot on account of t'ne fact that the Corporation wants to construct car parking-cum-commerciai compiex. Even ifthe suit is pending with regard to right ofthe parties, this Court may entertain the petition under Articie 226 of the Constitutlon of india to quash the order dated 9-6-2006, whic'n directed vacatlon of the ptot for construction of car parking-c.um-cotrimereiai complex. 5) Be t'nat Sis it may, adi-nittediy, as above stated, even the right of the petitioner to operate a petro! purnp on the plot/land is in question before the Civil Court, fhe subsequent action taken by other partles during pendency of the suit may be agitated before the Civil Court wherein the matter is pending consideration. There cannot be two paraltel proceedings, which are interwoven, iike the present case. The decision of the High Court rnay pi-ejudice the cause of the parties before t'ne Civii Court. F.ven otherwise, the present dispute invoives question of fiicte, which can also not be considered by this Court in exereise of writ jurisdiction. 6) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is dismlss. not maintainabie. However, tiberty is reserved to the petitioner and n f36tw'-'f'-J-"''?SS'6:?^^i ^ fi': parties to seek redressel of the grievances in civil suit No.22-.Ay99, which is pending consideration before the Court of Second Additionai District Judga, Raipur. Learned Court below shail consider and decide the matter, in accordance with iaw without being influenced toy the observations made, if 7) Consequenfly, interim order passed earlier the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ) ^ L