^t ^"^^3 ^lfl IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl N0. <^3^3 /2008 PETITIONER r Smt. Sapna Roy Choudhary, W/o M.N. Roy Choudhary, RESPONDENTS feo\*<?3^^^^ Agedabout60years,Ry R/o LIG- ^-^'•^^^^lx:^.^-""" ^""^ 244, Hudco Bhilai, Amdi Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1." Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg, C.G. through its Commissioner 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, D.K. S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur C.G. 3. TheDirector, Department of Local Self Government Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^ w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 6359 of 2008 Petjtipner Respondent Versus Smt. Sapna Roy Choudhary. Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg & Others WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri C. J. K. Rao with Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pankanj Agrawal, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 13th day ofJuly, 2010) 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.1 to grant permission for construction on the allotted land situated at Supela, Bhilai, District Durg. 2. The facts in nutshell as projected by the petitioner, is pursuant to the application dated 11-10-1984 (Annexure P-1), the Chief Executive Officer, the then Special Area Development Authority (for short "SADA") granted allotment of the land admeasuring 30x30 sq.ft. vide letter dated 15-1-1985 (Annexure P-2) stating that the construction on the plot can be made only after permission of the Authority. Subsequently, the SADA was dissolved and Municipal Corporation of Bhilai came into existence in place of SADA. It is further submitted that despite repeated letters written to the respondent Corporationon 15-3-1985 (Annexure P-3) and 28.11.1990 (Annexure P-4), no permission is granted. On enquiry under provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner was informed that the proposal to allot the plot has been cancelled \v^ s:r ::r: 2 in the meeting of the then SADA on 25-2-1992 (Annexure P-5). It was resolved to cancel allotment of plot to the petitioner, Rosemary Drazen, Sundrika Shukla, and A.K.Das. Thus, this petition for a direction to the respondent No.1 to grant permission for construction on the altotted land. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly altotted a plot as is evident from letter dated 15-1-1985 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter without assigning any reason, the same has been cancelled in its meeting held on 25-2-1992. Subsequently, Sundrika Shukla and Rosemary Drazen have been allotted plots as is evident from the agreement between Sundrika Shukla and the respondent Corporation, the then SADA (Annexure P-7). On the other hand, Shri Agrawal, tearned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that there was no proper and final allotment in favour of the petitioner. The letter was a simply provisional allotment in the nature of proposal, which was to become effective only after execution of the lease deed. No request of the same was ever made by the petitioner and as such no agreement was executed between the parties. Accordingly, the then SADA after seven years decided to cancel the provisional allotment made in favour of the petitioner. With regard to allotment made to others, may be they have taken steps thereafter by making a request to reconsider his case for allotment of plot. Learned counsel further submits that in the instant petition, the petitioner has not asked for execution of the lease agreement between the parties for atlotment of the plot. Without having proper allotment of plot, the petitioner is seeking a direction to \u^ .^irt m^^ ^^ ^ ?-. %^ M 3 grant permission to construct a house thereupon, which has still not been allotted to the petitioner. On hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that Annexure P-2 was simply a proposal stating the amount, lease fee, security deposit and further a clause added that after allotment, a permission has to be obtained by the petitioner from the authority for construction of the house. The petitioner has failed to show any documents that he has ever attempted to get the plot allotted permanently after execution ofthe proper lease deed. It is evident from the letter of the petitioner itself (Annexure P-4), wherein the petitioner subsequently, after cancellation of the provisional allotment wrote a letter to the authorities for allotment of the land in accordance with law that no plot was allotted to the petitioner on execution of lease deed. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was quite aware that the plot was never allotted to the petitioner after execution of any agreement. Reliance of the agreement subsequently between Sundrika Shukla and SADA on 13/3/1996 (Annexure P-7) is of no assistance to the petitioner as the petitioner has not sought for any relief seeking a direction on the basis that he has attempted to get the lease executed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, no relief as sought for, for grant of permission to construct a house on the plot which was not allotted to the petitioner, can be granted. The petition is devoid of merits and accordingly is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge \ SYG Ashok