77:5s s B i; sBa s;teSiage:, sSi»i!i»i» » .^^";^<%^^g^^^^^^!S^^^-^.^ ^•^-^^•^-'•.^^" '/^ ;• " ;. npay^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR (DIVISION BENCH) CORAM : HON'BLESHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, AGTING C.J. & HON'BLESHRI DILIP RAOSAHEBDESHMUKH, J. APPELLANT PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ WRIT APPEALfP.R.) N0.2595 of 2007 Balkrishna Agarwal, S/o Late Shri R.D.Agarwal, Aged about 49 years, R/o 24, Doongaji Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur (C.G.) 5. Agroha Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (a registered Co-operative Society), through its Manager ShriKrishna Kumar Gehre, Agrasen Nagar, Ring Ro^d Chowk, Mahadeo Ghat Road, Raipiiif, (C.G.) 6. Hari Ram Charitable Trust.through its President Shri Rajendra Goyat, New Timber Market, Fafadeeh, Raipur (C.G.) WritADpeal underSection 2 sub-section dlofthe Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Divisipn Bench) Act, 2006 Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava.learned counselfor theappellant/petitioner, Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Ravish Chandra Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri S.S.Agrawal, counsel for the caveateij'espondent No.6. ORALORDER (Passed on 03.07.20071 1 ~T }.' The following oral order of the Court was passed by Jagdish Bhalla, Acting C.J.: I.A.No.2. This is an application for cpndonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. — Heard. According to the appellant, there is delay of five days in filingthe appeal. With all fairness, leamed Deputy Advocate General for the State states that he would notlike to file any reply. Accordingly, the delay which has been explained by the appellant is reasonable and is condoned. Consequently, I.A.No.2 stands disposed of. I.A.No.3. This is an application for taking copy of the writ petition and synopsison record. Heard. The copy ofthe writ petitionand the synopsis are taken on record. Accordingiy, I.A.No.3 stands disposed of and the default pointed out by the office stands removed. The matter is heard on admission. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 9th February, 2007, whereby the Hon'ble Single Judge has quashed the orders dated 13.04.2006 and 19.05.2006. Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent had granted eoncession before the Single Judge and admitted before this Court as well that Joint Registrar Co-operative Society has no power to cancel the registered sale deed dated 29 September 2001 executed in favour of respondent No.6. Inspite of the same the appellant filed this writ appeal praying for quashihg of the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to quash the ordgjgclated 13.04.2006 as there was no specific prayer before the learned Single Judge;vignoring the fact that the appellant himself had considered as referred to hereinabove. Insuch circumstances, it was imperative on the part ofthe'Single Judge to show interference in orderdated 13.04.2006 though there was no specific J prayer but it was the consequence of the concession granted by the appellant. . In D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Delhi Municlpal Coipn.andof/»ers,(1976)3 SCC 160, it has been held in paragraph 21 ofthe judgment by the Apex Court that : "Beforewepart with thisjudgment we maynote here in fairness to respondent No.4, a concession madeby Dr. Singhvi on behalf of the colonizer. The concession is that all "open spaces", set apart for roads, streets, public parks, public lawns, ete., and other services, as distinguished from "open sites" earmarked for schools hospitals and other public utility buildings, shown in the sanctioned layout plans in these colonies vest in the municipal corporation free of cost and that his clienthas no objection to the transfer of such open spaces free of cost to the municipalcorporation if such transfer has not already been made." Similarly in State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrlnivas Nayak ancfanof/ier,(1982)2SCC 463 the Supreme Court held as under: "..... Of course, a party may resile and an appellate court may permit him in rareand appropriate cases to resile from.a concession on the ground that the concession was made on awrong appreciation of the law andhad led togross injustice; but, he may noteall in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment." In P.K. Vasudeva andothers vs. Zenobia Bhanot,{1999)7 SCC 377 also, the Supreme Gourt is of the opinion that "where order passed on concession of counsel and the other party acted on such order.such party could not be permitted to'challenge the same as there remained nothing to challenge the order having exhausted itself. Further in Mahabir Prasad Jainvs. Ganga Singh, (1999) 8SCC 274 the Supreme Court held that "once concessionor admissiori. made by counsel or appellant regarding some point, such point cannot be raised again". Anjani In the lightof above, we areof the consideredopinion that learned SingleJudgehasnotcommittedanyrnanifesterroroflawandhas upheld thesuperiority ofjusticebyquashing the order dated 13.04.2006 which is the consequence ofthe concession granted bythelearned counselfor the appellantas referred to hereinabove. Since np other ground has been pressed by the learned counsel forthe appellant, we find that there is no ground available to show interference with the order passed by the learned SingleJudge. Accordingly, theappeal is dismissed. Actiag ChiefJustice ^Oe*^ ^^l^^r^