7 ¢§ESP0NDENTS xix: fl; x0, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PE TITIONER : Jagdishlal s/o Latwe Shri Lakhe Singh, ‘ L o“ q ‘ Aged about 62 years, R/o work No. 10 Bazarpara Saraypali, .V’ . Tehsil Saraypali, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) / 111 'I" k VERSUS ,,g g . <. Q‘W 1. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Saraypali Teh. Saraypali, Distt. Mahasamund Jogendar Singh Ahuja S/o Chunnilal, Aged about 50 years, R/o Ward No. 1 1 Near mandi Saraypali, Tehsi] Saraypali Distt mahasamund 3. The Collector alféeamund ’i PETITION UNDER ARTICL M AND 227 OF THE f ,A ES (s$w’ M CONSTITUTION OF INDIA % ; Y § ./\ ‘ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISG ’ BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 684 OF 2002 Petitioner Jagdish Lal Versus Respondents Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar . Panchayat— Saraypali & others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.D.Guru, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri L.C.Das, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 29th day of July, 201 0) Challenge in this petition is to the decision taken in resolution by the council of Nagar Panchayat, Saraypali/respondent No.1 on 23/11/2000 (Annexure P-7), which was given effect to without proper substantial order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the resolution in appeal before the Collector, Mahasamund. The Collector dismissed the appeal, as being not maintainable by order dated 21/1/2002 (Annexure — P/8). Shri Paranjape, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the resolution was passed on the basis of opinion and guidance given by the Advocate of the respondent No.1 directing mutation of the property of the petitioner in the name of the respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that this was the property of the respondent No.2 and, as such, the \\ t\ H A H @ respondent No.1 has rightly resolved to direct mutation of property in the revenue records. 5. Be that as it may, it is well settled proposition of law that the resolution of a meeting of the council of respondent No.1 cannot ipso facto be given effect to. There has to be an order on the basis of resolution, which may be implemented. ln the case on hand, it has been not brought to the notice of this Court that any consequential substantive order has been passed, thereon. It is a case of the petitioner that pursuant to resolution no order has been passed. Thus, the resolution is not open to judicial review, as it is in the form of recommendation and thereafter, recommendation has to be accepted and proper order has to be passed. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the resolution could not be given effect to, as this Court by order dated 15/4/2002 directed the parties to maintain status quo as Obtained on that day. 7. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nusli Neville Wadia & Anr1.while considering a resolution passed by the Government of India for eviction of the unauthorized occupants from the occupancy of the premises on the basis of the resolution passed by the Government, the Supreme Court observed that the resolution are mere guidelines and not controlled by the statutory provisions. This Court in Bholaram Verma Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others 2 has held that it is trite that the resolution or a decision in a meeting is not the order which can be given effect to. There should be a proper order pursuant to the resolution for appointment to the a 1 2008 AIR scw 208 2 w.P.No.3772 of 2005, decided on 23'“ March, 2007 *\ 3 post of Panchayat Karmi. After resolution of Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha to appoint Panchayat Karmi, the Sarpanch has to pass an appropriate appointment order for appointment of Panchayat Karmi. 9: in view of the above, it is held that the resolution cannot be given effect to, without proper order and, as such, the petition is dismissed being premature, as no final order has been passed. Without'there being any final order no mutation in respect of any property can be done. However, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to agitate the issue, if any prejudicial order has been passed without following and complying with the provisions of law, if so advised. 10. No order asto costs. Sd/-- ‘ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok ti