HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR $1 PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.fCl N0.4903/2010 Senapati Jaggi S/o Late Shri Ramashray Jaggi aged about 74 years, Jaggi Medical Stores, Station Road, Indira Gandhi Ward (Ganjpara) Raipur (C.G.) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Town Administration and Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Municipal Corporation, through Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Municipat Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) WR8T PETiTION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.t/State. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4. Mr. Surnesh Bajaj, Advocate for caveator, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur on the strength of General Caveat Petition No. 336/2010. ,,^;^2S^^ /f^ ^^ sr ....,•^ W.P. fC) N0.4903/2010 y> SUNIL KUMAR SINHAJ. ORAL ORDER (18.01.2011) Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this petition for the foilowing reliefs:- 10. Reiieffsl Souaht "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertainjng to the case ofthe petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make renewai of the lease of petitioner. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to oust the petitioner from the premises leased out to him eariier. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fjt and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petitjon." The petitioner was granted lease for an area of specified plot situated in Ganj Padao, Raipur. This iease vi/as granted for a period of 30 years commencing from the date contended in the lease deed. Mr. Tamaskar submits that before expiry of the lease period, an application w-as fiied before the Municipal Corporation, Raipur for extension/renewal/new grant of the iease of the said plot, but the application filed for extension/renewal/new grant is stiii pending before the Corporation and no decision has been taken till date. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to (, submits that if the appiication flled for grant/renewal of the lease for the subject plot for -which the eariier lease was granted, has not been disposed of by the Corporation, fhe Corporation shail take a decision on the said application. However, he submits that a reasonabie time rnay be granted to the Corporation to take a decision in the rnatter of granyrenevv-ai of the lease of thesubject plot. it is not disputed that the petitioner is holding the possession of the subject piot. it is aiso not disputed that the subject plot was granted on iease to the petitioner. ..^'/ ./' ^^.1.,^" W.P.(CINO. 4903/2010 $3 !n the above facts and circumstances of the case, 1 deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with the direction to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur that if the application for grant/renewal of the lease of the subject plot has not been disposedof by the Corporation till date, the Corporation shall dispose of the said application within a period of 3 months from today and shall communicate the decision to the petitioner. If the decision has already been taken by the Corporation, the same shall also be communicated to the petitioner by the Corporation. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar submits that the petitioner apprehends that he would ,be forcibly disposed by the Corporation on the pretext that the period of lease has already been expired and there is no further grant in favour ofthe petitioner. Since the petitioner is in possession of the subject plot, it is further directed that no coercive steps shall be taken fordispossession of the petitioner form the subject plot by the Corporation before final decision of the pending application for granVrenewal of lease before the Corporation. of. With the above observations/directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed There shall 'oe no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge