@ (,0 R 529 2 o3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASPUR Writ Appeal (Pr) No.54G8 of 2009 a Present:- . I Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/appellants. APPELLANTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh ,through Respondents No.1 toS Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 3. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 4. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Town and Country Planning, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 5. The Sub-Divisional omoer‘ Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus RESPONDENTS: 1. Geetanjali Constructions (Colonizer Petitioners Developer and Builder}, A Partnership Firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1956, through its Partner Sant Ram Sahu, Slo Shri Mutan Ram Sahu, aged 53 years, Rlo Geetanjali House, Nehru Nagar, Ameri. Road, Biiaspur (CG) 2. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur through Commissioner, Municipai Corporation, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ' (RespondentNo.6) 3. Gram Panchayat, Mangla, through its Secretary, ‘ Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) . _ . (Respondent No.7) Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. JUDGMENTV (4.1 1-2009) . 1. This writ appeal is listed on default. 2. The appellants have preferred this wri appeal ‘under Section 2(1) of t the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act’) against the interim order dated 7-8-2009 passed in WP(C) No.2725109 preferred by respondent No.1. " 3. Shri Vinay Harit; Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the ' appellants submitted that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench against the interlocutory order and the appeal can be preferred _ against such order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Reliance is placed on Full Bench'Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Coult in the matter of Arvind Kumar Jain & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. {AIR 2007 MADHYA PR-ADESH 276}. . in the instant case, from perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that the same has been passed on the ground that the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Registration of Colonizer, terms and conditions) Rules, '1 999 (for short ‘the Rules’) are not applicable to the present case. It has been also observed that minimum area in the . land in dispute is less than 5600 sq. meter, whereas the dennition of Eiixl ” @ colonizer under Section 2(b) of the Rules prescribes minimum plot area - af 5000 sq. meter. 6V From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Singie Judge has arrived to the conciusion that area of respondent No.1 is iess than 5000 sq. meter whereas the whole area for which project of respondent No.1 was sanctioned was much more than 5000 sq. meter. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order virtually recorded a l\ finding which is conclusive in nature and, therefore, the bar contained in sub—section (1) of Section 2 of the Act would not come in way of filing writ appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. We have perused the impugned order as also the memo of appeal. 9, From perusal of the orderunder challenge, it is clear that in’the impugned order after recording the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners the effect and operation of the order passed by the SDO (Revenue) (Anexure-Pli) has been stayed until further orders considering the facts situation of the case. 10. From perusal of the order of the SDO, which was produced for our perusal by Shri Harit, it appears that SDO by its order has declared the V colony constructed by the respondent/petitioner as‘illegal. imposing penalty of Rs.23,000l-, transfer of plots have been declared null and' void. The order of forfeiture of the right, title or interest of the colonizer ~ in the land under illegal colonization has been passed under Section 61-G of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and . the same has been vested in Gram Panchayat Mangla. wemm.2 zes- we l 1‘1, Considering the nature of the order passed by the SDO,the operation and effect of which has been stayed by the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the instant writ appeal is not maintainable in View of the bar contained in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section -2 of the Aet. 12‘ in the result, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainabie. //W ii: Sal- Sdl- M‘shm : *R.N. Chandrakar ,Ll.‘ =- .Dmrendra .e Judge Ban/e ”W” Judge