/ ? HEGE CDURT (13 Ck?&T’l"£$Gé&’x’.- a‘n‘I‘ Bl’ a , . q wm cm“ m 0W“ M wm w ‘ mm inmzmo' mo63§ m §2épog “ww m w w \ gnu-um.” w—u ‘.m-...~ y.” “ Divigimnal ofi‘ice, t : {Juxg { 3 G 3 8. Ei$tt%g ”a$~£ a1 ( m.” §ggr. a ¢*;u;‘gu ’ - § hwhrw Cb OF 1&3 2 éE'IXJéiE LERTIO£E§§£ ‘:NEIL cu-.. N w mnna mm.“ a ... ~u~nwumm. w- aw-WW“... n ‘ ‘ 1 M“. W cg-nu.. M. mwawzwb.“ a «m. w“ ‘Aw‘agr w M W“ Wham / M g J M, wn n wwwww m mm wam V g a 1—, w .3 ‘ )1 &§X wfE r' i M ? ‘ % Nm QE , W .“ .wwggmggq’ggER z Vikas Singh, San abaui: 26 yeam, ’ “m $ingh, ageri resirEent of guzartex Ego“ B/C, Eitreet n 1,, Sectot 7, 'i‘shiiai, r Bistt z mrg ( €2 G ). 9resic1eni:, ESRM‘ Ma§$ K%‘.f&i<§ &$&I:TI, Ham: Gffice g mamas: Na. 8/6., Straet a}, $a¢t0r '7; Ehilai Eagar, Ei§;§tt z nuzg "{ S G ). mSwiqmigw h : 1. $w61 wautmrity of In<3iaa Ltc‘x ateel giant thmugh “W”'“‘*"“"‘”‘" Bhilai its Managing Diractor, isspat Bhawan. Ehilai, msw z mm ( CG). 2. Ehilai iateal mam: thxough it$ General Manager, 'Ibwn Mmiaist raticm aepartmemt , House LeaaSe Sgctian, ZML Emgaloyees Leasing of Fbusing Sghame Elmimi Siteel :91ant, g €/ DiStt a Eéurg (c S ). The Tmm Xagaministrator (Land misstt :mrg (cG}. Bhilai $te€a E’lamt: Thea gasgt. Gamma}. Manage£ 'Ibwn iachninistra‘cica Bhilai $eee1 lamb Disttu: £§urg ( C G ). 5’. The &$sk. Gemeral Manager, '1bwn mministration, Bhilai 31:3:(31 Eight, §i$tt ‘: mtg ( E G ) 5, The $olmctcr, auxg, {Jistt s Emmy ( C G ) HIGH COUgT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPgR {€64 WRIT PETmoN No.3260 OF zoo: Vikas Singh, 5/0 Shri 5P. Singh, Aged abou‘r 26 years, Sfree'r-l, R/o Quarter Ne.8/C, Sfree'r-l, Sector -7, BhHai, _\ ‘ mm: burg (ca) President ‘W’ Ispa'r Awas Kulydn Sami‘ri, No.8/C, Head Office: Quarter No.8/C, S‘rree‘r-I, Sector 7, Bhilai Nagnr, Disn: Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS: Sfeei Amhorhy of India Limited and seven other-s Presenf: - Shri V.K. Pundey, Advoca‘re: For the petitioner. Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Govt. Advocate: For respondents 6, 7 & 8. ii am.- : Hon'ble m L.c. Bhodoo H O R D E_R (Passed on w-November, 2003) 1. The petitioner, who is the President of Ispat Awas Kalyon 5amiti, Bhilai District: Durg, has preferred this writ petition under Article j Nagar, 226/227 of the Constitution of India, chailenging the show cause notice dated 02.09.2003 issued by Town Administration Department, Bhiioi Steel Plant, asking the members of the petitioner-Association to remove the construction/olteration/ modification/encroachment in various flats constructed and sold by the Ispat Awas Kalyan 5amitito them.’ 2. The pefi'rioner's peTifion is 1*ha‘r The Ispcxf Awas Kaiyan Samifi is a regisfered soiefy under Chhn‘r‘risgarh Socie‘fy Regis‘rmtion Adhiniyam, 1973. About 4,335 mbers the Ispaf Awas Kaiyan Sami'ri enfered imo an ugreemem‘ wi‘rh responden'fs 2 ‘ro 5 and as per- The agreement fhey have Taken The constructed houses as per 1’he Sale Scheme 2001 ‘J issued y respondent No.1. Affer fhe o'llo'rme' of fhese houses. some of The member have constructed certain structures adjoining to their houses/flats and made addition and alterations. The made appiiations befre respondents 2 & 3, but tey have not considered the applications of Lessees. Copy of the lease agreement is Annexure P-3. Even on 23.08.2003, a meeting was convened in presence of respondents 3 to 8, in which the respondents decided to devise a norm for decision on extra construction. Copy of the minutes of the meeting is Annexure P-4. But the norms have not been decided regarding the development of the colonies. On the contrary! respondents 2 & 3 have issued show cause notice regarding the removal of construction at the risk of the members of the 5aiti. The petitioner made a representation before respondents 3 to regarding the show cause notice, ut they have not onsidered the same. The members of the a 4» Samiti are low paid employees, some of them are retired persons, and v some are widows of te members and entire amount, as per the Scheme and agreement for extra construction on vacant land, has beenpaid prior to the application for construction, but the respondents have not considered the same till date. Therefore the respondents be restrained from acting pon the said show cause notices. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition along with the documents. 4. I is an admitted position that the members of the petitioner-Society who are 4,335 in number, entered into an agreement with respondents 2 to 5 and as per he agreement they have taken the [J‘ c me of b nr s yfthad c o h m 8 b c i l h ‘ , u . t t w g’ houses as per The Sale Scheme 2001 and if is also an admiffed posifion fhaf ‘rhese members have consfruc‘red Some S‘h'uc‘rures in ‘rhe adjoining area. The Show cause no‘i'ice (Annexure P-1) shows Thu? The members of The SamiTi have consTrucTed cerTain sTrucTures on The adjoining lands wiThouT prior permission of The AdminisTraTion and also in vioiaTion of The agreemenT and The Scheme. If we look inTo The Sale Scheme 2001, under which The houses were alloTTed To The members of The SocieTyl in sub'rule (13.1) of Rule 13 of The Rules & Qgndi‘Tions of The Scheme, iT has been menTioned ThaT The alloTTee/PaTTa holder will noT change The sTrucTure of The house or make any addiTionl, alTeraTion, buT The AdminisTraTion can afTer enquiry inTo The applicaTion of The members can permiT addiTional consTrucTion To a cerTain exTenT and The house will noT be uTilized for any purpose oTher Than The residenTial purpose and on The violaTion of The condiTions of The PaTTa, even The alloTmenT of house can be cancelled. Along wiTh This condiTion, oTher 15 condiTions are There. Even in sub-clause (a) of clause-2 of The lease agreemenT which was enTered inTo beTween The members of The SocieTy and The STeel AuThoriTy of India LimiTed, iT has been specifioally menTioned, “The houses/flaTs shall noT be used for any purpose oTher Than residence. The lessee shall noT be enTiTled To subdivide The dwelling uniT. The lessee shall in no way encroach upon The common porTion or services or. unauThorised encroachmenTs’are liable To be removed aT lessee's cosT." Therefore, in view of specific condiTions in The agreemenT as well as in The scheme, in case, The members are found To be encroaching upon The common porTion or some addiTion/alTeraTion/consTrucTion is made Then They are liable To cancellaTion of The alloTmenT of houses/flaTs or removal of such sTrucTure aT Their cosT. ‘ . As has been argued by The learned counsel for The peTiTioner ThaT noTices are being issued To Those members and alloTTees who have been made addiTion/alTeraTion and encroached upon The adjoining lands, 'rherefore, in The circumsfances, whefher, H' is in fitness of Things fha'r fhis Cour‘r should invoke extruvordinary jurisdiciion Thai foo on ihe of The Presidenf of Samii’i, fhe answer ‘l'o this question can only request be negative, for. the reason that first of all, if any encroachment/addition/ alteration or violation of rules of the scheme M of lease deed is committed then the members are liable to such action h i I which is envisaged under the scheme and the agreement. Individual looked when the individual cases argjiled as to cases can be looked into, only what extent the violation has taken place, whetheririt is in the permissible limits or whether the construction comes under the violation; all these are disputed facts which require investigation. By a general/composite order in writ jurisdiction, no direction or writ can be issued restraining the respondents not to take action against the allottes who have violated the agreement and Scheme, as they are taking action under the rules of the Scheme and agreement clause. 6. Therefore, the disputed questions cannot be enquired into in this writ petition. The number of members of the Society is 4,335. So this requires enormous exercise of each individual case which cannot be vy gone into in this writ jurisdiction. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. The petitioner/Society is at liberty to approach before the appropriate Court and appropriate Forum, if they are so advised. U 7. The writ petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. I Sdl— , L,c;.BHADoa , “7‘1‘3\«Judge e, l r Somo