^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B. HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. & HONBLJSHRTR.N. CHANDRAKAR. JJ Appellant (Petitioner) Respondents Appellant (Petitioner) Versus 1. 2. 3. Writ Appeal No. 338 of 2010 AK Das, Son of KP Das, aged about 40 years, R/o 27/13 Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai. District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg, CG, Through Its Commjssioner. State of Chhattisgarh. Through : The Secretary. Department of Local Self Govemment, DKS Bhawan, Marrtralaya, Raipur, CG. The Director, Department of Local Self Govemment, Raipur, CG. Writ Appeal No. 335 of 2010 Smt. Sapna Rai Choudhary, W/o MN Roy Choudhary, aged about 60 years, R/o LIG-244, Hudco Bhilai, Amdi Nagar, Distnct Durg, Chhattisgarh. Resoondents 1. 2. 3. Municipal Corporation, Bhiiai, District Durg, CG, Through Its Commissioner. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary. Department of Local Self Govemment, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, CG. The Director, Department of Local Self Government, Raipur, CG. Present: Mr. Jitendra Gupta and Mr. CJK Rao, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondent/Municipal Corporation. Mr. UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL JUDGMENT (8th February, 2011) PerDhirendra Mishra. J The above writ appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as the issue involved in both these appeals is similar. 2. The petitioners filed the above writ petitions and prayed for direction to respondent No.1 to grant permjssion for construction on the allotted land situated at Supela. Bhilai, Distt. Durg. The contention of the petitioners in ttieir writ petitions is that the Chief Executive OfHcer of the then Special Area ^' <0 3 Development Authority (for brevity "SADA") had granted allotment of land in their favour vide letter dated 15l January, 1985. It was stated in the allotment orcter that constructton on the plots can be made only after permission of the authority. Subsequently, SADA was dissolved and Munidpal Corporation of Bhilaj came into existence. The petitioners' repeated request for according permission for construction was not replied and finally, ttiey leamt that the proposal to allot plot has been cancelled by SADA on 25.2.1992. Learned Single Jludge, considering that the petitioners have not asked for execution of lease agreement between the parties for allotment of plot and that without having proper allohnent, they are seeta'ng direction to grant permission to construct house. held that no reljef, as sought for, for grant of permission to construct house on the plot, which has not been allotted to the petitioners, can be granted. 3. Mr. Jitendra Gupta with Mr. CJK Rao, leamed counsel aRpearing for the appellants vehemently argued that from perusal of the allotment order, it would be evident that the plots in question were temporarily allotted to the petitioners vide allotment order dated 15.1.1985 (Annexure P/2). The petitioners were also directed to deposit licence fee and security deposit within a week. It was stipulated in the allotment order that the construction could be undertaken only after seeking due permission in this regard; the petitioners deposited the amount as directed within ttie stipulated period; they also appljed for permission to construct, however, their applifcations were never considered. Thus, in wew of the above fact, the learned Singte Judge was not justified in concluding that the communication regardjng allotment was only a proposal of allotment. It was the incumbent duty of SADA to ensure that formal lease deed is executed between the parties, and ttie relief claimed by the peto'tioners for grant of permission to consfruct a house on the plots could not be refused on the ground that no lease deed was executed in favour ofthe petitioners. 4. On the other hand, Mr. HB Agrawal, leamed Sr. Advocate wlth Ms. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate appearing for the respondents/Municipal Corporation vehemently argued that from bare perusal ofthe communication dated 15.1.1985. it is evident that proposal for temporary allotment for a period of up to March, 1985 was made, subject to deposit of licence fee and security amount within a period of seven days. The petitioners were also required to submit duly signed agreement for tease along with the above fee. However, they did not fulfill the aforesajd conditions and no lease deed was executed in favour ofthe petitioners.. j 1 't. Q y s ?^te&^^ ^ 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pteadings of the respective parties in the writ petition and the documents appended thereto, as also the impugned order. 6. Indisputably, the ersfrwhile SADA vide its communication dated 15.1.19^ (Annexure P/2) proposed to temporarily allot plote in qu^tion, subject to deposit of licence fee and security amount. The petitioners were also called upon to submit duly signed proper lease deed. Learned Singte Judge, considering that ttie petitioners did not attempt to get the lease deed executed in their favour, held that no relief, as sought for, for grant of permission to construct a house on the plots, which were not allotted to ttie petitioners, can be granted. In the absence of valid tease deed 1n favour of the petitioners duly executed by SADA, the learned Singte Judge has rightty rejected the reliefs claimed by the petitioners by ttie impugn^I orcter. We find no substance in these appeals; the same deserve to b®and are, accordingly, dismissed. — Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge