HIGH COURT OF JCDLCATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.2921 of 2003 PETITIONER: RESPQNDENTS: Alviaus Paana, S/o Pitnis Paana, Aged about 42 years, R/o Nava Para, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, ThrouRh: The Secretaiy, Panchayat aad Rural Development, D.K,S, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The CoUector, Ainbikapiir, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Nazul Officer, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja(C.G.) The President, ZiUa Sahkari San.gh (Maryadit), Aaibikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) POST FOR ORDERS ON 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2003 Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge 20,09.2003 §") HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.2921 of 2003 PETITIQNER: RESPONDENTS: Alvinus Paana, S/o Pitrus Paana, Aged about 42 years, R/o Nava Para, Aaibikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Versus 2. 3. 4. State of Chhatdsgarh, Through: The Secretary, Paachayat and Rural Development, D.K.S, Bhawaii, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Ainbikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Nazul Officer, Arabikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) The President, Zilla Sahkari Sangh (Maiyadit), Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Present: - Mr. V.K. Paadey, Advocate: For fhe petitioner Before: Hon^ble Shrl Justice L.C. Bhadoo ORDBR (Passed on^y<^ September, 2003) 1. The petitioner has preferred fhis wri.t petition under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India, for seekiag direction agamst respondents 2 & 3 to set aside fhe allotmient proceediags iaitiated by respondent No.3 ia favour of respondent No.4 aad further to direct respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's case beariag No.A- 20(1)/97-98 withia a stipulated period. 2. The case of fhe petitioner is fhat fhe petitioner is a poor person aad he is Uviag under fhe poverty Une. He has constructed a house on fhe vacaat laad situated at Nava Para, Anibikapur, bearing plot No.7/3 area 0.04 acre aad he was ia continuous possession suice last 15 years. He has raade an appUcation before respondent No.3^ for aUotaient of ttie said laiid. Respondent No.3 rcgistered Case No.A-20(1)/97-98 aad also issued aa Ishftiar for mviting objections, The order sheets of the said case are Annexure P-2 aad Ishfh.ar is Annexure P-3. In fhe meantime, respondent No.3 has registered anofher case for graat of lease of the said laiid in favour of rcspondent No.4 vide Case No.27/A-20(l)/98-99 and started enquiry for grant of lease of tiie said laiid ia favour of respondent No.4. For fhat purpose also, respondent No.3 issued Ishfhar iiiviting objections aad subinitted a report to respondent No,2 for allotnient of the laad on lease basis ia favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner has raade aa application wifh affidavit before respondent No.2 regarduig fhe encroachiaent of fhe laad by rcspondent No.4, But respondent No.2 has not considered fhe same tiU date aad the same is stiU pendiag before respondent No,2 for consideration. The petitioner has no other altemative remedy except to file fhis writ petition. 3. I have heard ftie learaed counsel for ftie petitioner aad perased fhe record. 4. The perusal of Annexure P-1, reconunendation dated 5th August, 2003, xaade by fhe Nazul Ofl&icer, Anibikapiir, states fhat the President, Distdct Co-operative Society (Maiyadit), Ainbikapur, had made aa appUcation on 12th December, 1998, upon which this was registered and fhe Society has requested for aUotment of laad bearmg plot No.7/3, area 0.04 acre, total 1742.40 sq.ft. for construction of fhe office buUdiag aad upon fbiis fhe Ishfhar was pubUshed. It has also been inentioned ia fh.e report (Annexure P-1) that the petitioner hereia aad one President, Madhya Pradesh Gazetted Officers' Association raised fhe objection. It has fiirfher been inentioned that the petitioner's possession is not on fhe laad and fhe F^resident of fhe Gazetted Officers" Association had given ia writmg that if fhe laad ia question is allotted to fhe Society, he has no objection. The Up-Saachalak, Nagar & Gram Nivesh, Korba, has also given his consent vide letter dated 17.11.99 that fhey had no objection if fhe land ia question is allotted to the Society. 5, Therefore, in view of fhe above, fhe contention of fhe leamed coiinsel for fhe petitioner fhat he has constnicted the house on fhe laad ia question is not correct aad as per Annexure P-1, fhe laad ia / C5T. question is vacaat and petitioner cannot claiai as of right the aUotment of ttiat laad. It is undisputedly Goverament laad. Respondents 2 & 3 are competent enough to allot fhe laad m question to fhe rightful person after foUowuig the prescribed procedure, Thereforc, therc is no substaace ia fhe contention ofthe leamed counsel for fh.e petitioner. However, since fh.e petitioner has appUed for atlotaient of fhe laad, beiag a laadless person, aiid the case has also been registercd aad fhe Ishthar has also been pubUshed, fherefore, it is for respondent No,3 to consider fhe case of the petitioner, If fhe petitioner is entitied for allotment of laad beiag a landless person, then respondent No.3 after followiag ftie procedure aad coinpletmg ftie legal formalities finds fhat fhie laad is available, he caa allot fhe laad to fhe petitioner and for fhat purpose respondent No.3 should decide fhe pending case of fhe petitioner witliin a period of fhree inonfhs froxn today, 6. In fhe result, fhe petition of the petitioner regardnig allotiaent of the laad ia question bearing No.7/3 area 0.04 acre deserves to be dismissed aad fhe same is dismissed. However, respondent No.3 is directed to decide fhe petitioner's case regardiag fhe aUotnient of suitable laad wifhia a period offhrce monfhs from today. 7. Accordmgly, fhe writ petition staads disposed of. __— Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Soma %\ '^