Noiioaaiu / aaaao/iiaM aiviadoyddv d O 3 ONVn SSt a Od V laNI N0 N0linilJ.SN00 <^ 3HJ. do ZSZ/9ZZ ^^^llav aaaNn Noiiiiad iiyyuv .. MyS~s^s v^v^e^y^^^^ .^^- ' ' ^^'^.•.•Xft^ ^^^^•'^^^e/vs^,'^_ ^ft^^^ _.'^^yi^/j^ ^u<f^^^^^^/^s^^ ^ Bc^^ ~fS^lf^^^. i'-%n.^5.'-fiwvu;m'->'yM*yry'"aQ ^4'r°d .•' .^ ^ ^^.P.^^^-s^^ , 1-0 'AjBiejoag-qSnojqi 6oApn UILUGJ9 jpei^x -g UBMBLjg •g •>ra '^JBiaioas -46nojqi ^t undrey 'peoy BAiA|e|/\| }B Qoiyosi! 6y!Aeq iBQSuoiukuoo pue uQisseoons iBriiedjsd 6ujAeL) '9S6t'13V"0!iBiodjo3|Bd!bjun|/\| qjBBsinBLft.loeqipz-uoiiossjepun psiEjodjoou! Apoq B 'jnchey 'uoiiejod.tQO jed!oiuni/\| &L|I •g (L(.)BBs!iiBLJ43)jnd!ey 'eAB|Riiue|/\| UBMBqg-x-a 'lU9LU}jedsa}uaLudo|eA8(] UBqjn pUB IU9LUUQJIAU3 'AiB}9joeg i.)6no.iyi htidVOSIliHVHO rlO BIYiS^I. snsaaA undiey 'qe|Bj_ BJOIB»o/y 'sjBeAQe }noqe p96e 'Bq>|B|4PV-iet.un»|iuv UL|S o/N\ VHXVIHQV VI/MOy •ll^S s.i.NaaNOdsaa •^i €:• ,....p<»ep. -.C-ft"'" --ass^ is^y^ ®3r€l:""'"- '^^w a3N011113d •ZOOZ/_ -ON N0111l3d liaM —Z'/7^T . ;-——-——-- n • . ' ,- ;'; '.:1- . - •1" .' yndsvniaiv Havosijj.VHHO 3anjw3ianr:ioianooHQiH3HiNi !''.•*.•» ^- H!GH COURT pT CHHATTISGARK AT BILASPUR Smt»Lata Suyana Va. WiaT.PETITION N0.1342/02 S^tt, H.fr.inigt Vs. State ofC.G, WEIT PBT!'HON_Sp_,13'i3^02 Manish Kuniar Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. WRIT_PET1TIOS N0^1340/02 S'mt: Chstna Surcsnct Vs, State ofC.G. a. Ots. WR£TPETITION SO.I341 / 02 Anil AdJzla'kha Vs. State ofC.,0. & ltv"R.TT P?;t.T?TTni *T 8hH Baj@^v Sachdev £& ano. Vsi. State of C.G. & Ors, WRIT PET'TION.KO.1344/02 <Sl?ntt Harbhc^ciyi Kaur Vs. State ofC.G. & Ors. V/RIT P2ITITIO'*? N0,508/03 Stnt. Anita Sindhwani Vs. State uf C.O, & Ors. WRIT_PSTITK)N KO.SQ6/03 Rctkesh Saraogi Vs. State ofC.G. & Ors. AND ?rg!T_PSTITIQH N0.507/0; Aj'ay Sis-idhw^ni Vs. State uf C.G. St Ora -?•%• T% '^?1 P'^ u K y a K Postfor! 13/2/2005 Sd/- 'ActingChiefJusfice A 'T'fnt'^ ^ss'^ ^ ^z^. wmr pssTi'Tiopr N0.1342, j. S Vs. RITPETIT10KN0.134P/ 02 Sw.t. Chetaa Suraaa rtate of C.G. & Ors. •/ys yiifn <I / •1/08 Aall Adhlakha •i Rajeev Sachdev & aao, Vs. tate of C.O. 8s Ors. Vs. State of C.Q. 6s Ors. WRiT PETITION N0.305/03 ^s^^ State of C.G. fs Ors. c, s >.^VY^^^%' ft-rs ?3. The above 'A'ri't petitions have been heard analogously and are bein< disposed os' by Shis common order. W.P.No.133S/2002 shal! be the leading The petitioner of writ petition No. 1339/02 had eariief filed a petition bearing VV.P.No.783/2002, which came up for hearing on 19-4-2002. This Court passed the order that the petitioner sha!! make a detsiled representation to the State Government through the Secretary within 15 days alongwith ail the documents and copy of the petition clearly specifying the open area stii! lying, which shai! be decided by the State or such other aiithority as directed by the State Government as earty as possibie preferably withii-i frwo months rrom the date of receipt of the representation. !t was funher d-rected that ihe petitioner shall be heard and the State may aiso hear such othsr persons including the Depanment. it vvas also directsd {hat t'ne third paity intsrest may not be created on the open area. In fhe connected petitions aiso, Shls Court passed the order in similar iines, 3. !t is subrnitted that the petjtioner preferred the representation within Uie stipuiated pe-riod. tt is also submitted that some of the petitionefs in connected petitions have aiso preferred the representations vvithin the stipulated period and some ofthem preferred the representations within the extended period. 4. !t is stated that the aforesaid rspresentation was rejected by the State Government vide the impugned order holding that 'n viev'i' of the abolition of Raipur Development Authority the assets and iiabilities '.'est with the iVSunicipal Corporaiion, Ralpur and there is no provision for acquisition of the land by mutual agreement in the Chhatiisgarh Municjpal Corporation Act. !t is contended that during the pendency of thls Vi'rit petition, Raipur Devetopment Authority has been reconstituted. Learned counse! for the petitioner pointsd out and submitted that Raipur Development Authority has ii^^a passed a resolution in its mseting held on 28-12-2004 wherein a decision has been taken to the foilowing effect: "?'R'rTcr tgq'ra; - 2 ffri&cRw; -w Rrr)f"T .TtuFTiaff if ^^-vf f?I-3'J| yr cf)T 3IN''ift Wf^S ^t 3M-;] ^P'T-T cfi' WTa •(|' ] 'sv^i 'iTOTrcr w? •^•{gc-i -lirft ~'fri ^g \ T^ q?^ :qcRTO:rf'?[ ^ 's? W'v RTOT ira-f ftp ^ TcR'afr q fSlTTTf :3TP-T?ft Wl'STl'cT It. f^i^l 'ffl'^ 'f'T Sf^ f^l rilT-n t. •3Wf 60 y^W ^, ~J^-\'y. ftcr^R grfEWw, 'Tray ^ f;';:?],i''F> ft^r sft^ 40 gf(T?ra ^il '^ Wpft cft f'T(il | S-TI' 40 Srt?l?1Tf ^T •cp' f?rt 1:;:l£rff;?r[ ftipTTT ^P"^ Wfl 5TO '^l' w '^ fW^iH cp-7 •ijffr <.ntft ^ cit ^iffi i y?E Tcf!7cli' q3iia'ci ip? "?ixn?Tcfi tfen ^' TTOS 7-Sn vfT^TT 1 I^Tcfft'I ?; ?WTTO 'T3 1;ftlTc:W TT^-T ^ra Pi^ Ri?;f ^i7i-iT( i " S. It is contended by tearned counsel for the parties that in view of the above resolution, the matter can wall be resolved by mutua! agreemenV mutual settlement. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the material on record, in the opinion of this Court, ei-ids of justice vvili be seived if a direction is given to the petitioner to submit a suitable representation to Raipur Development Authority alongwith copy of this order within 15 days which shail be considered and decided by Raipur Deveiopment Authority as ear'y as possible preferably within a period of t\'vQ months from the date of receipt of the representation in accordancewith the resolution. 8. Ti!l the repi-esentation is decided, it is directed that 40% of ths land in question shail be preserved and no third party intei'Qst shall be created. With the aforesaid obser/ations this petition as wefl as other connected petitions stand disposed of. 10. Consequently, all the pending application shali aiso stand disposed of. Copy of this order be placed'in the connected matters. r Part'iesareentitled'forcertifiedcopyofthisordei'. ^ ''<T T- Sd/- Acting ChiefJustice