-HC—78 d-^-c) ^i^i<^^, ^T{1'(H4i<s, fsi^i'yy 'HINdl sb^leb •^ 200 3TT^ST ^TO (4C<^<^) ^^ ?FT f<rlich Trm^Tr^T^RNT ^^TTW ^ritn w^r SIN6LE BENCH: HON'BLfe JUSTICE bHIRENDRA MISHR^ W.P. [c PETTHONER TN Char(drashekharan, Age 73, S/o Late Varughe^e Plot ^ 31, RD^ Colony, Tikarapaj^, Raipur. Vs RESPONbENTS 1. Rdipur Buildinjg, GE ftoad, Raipur Thro' its Chief Execu+ive Officer. 2. State Deptt.1 Mantn{ilaya, Raipur (C6r) 25.2.2008 Mr, Raja Sharma, Advocafe for the petitioner< Mr. Sushil Dubey, ^overni^ent Advocate for the Stste. Heard on Gdmission. TTie petitioner by thi^ Constiliition of India has prayecj for fojjowing rejiefs:" "or, Issue writ 6152/rasha/RC/l/ ct)i^f<n^1ri ^i^<riT ^f,'fe^t <P?i^i< '^'^tRfH'^TT^T N0.1156/2008 Development Authority, RDA of Chhattisgarh, Thro' Secretary, of Housjng <& Environment, petition under Article 226 of the of Certiorari to quash ipra/07 Raipur dated 07/09/07 issued by CEO-RbA, t}laipur Annexure- P/l as well as 6078/rasha/RC/l^vipra/07 Raipur dated 03/09/07 issued by Revenue Officer-RDA, Rdpur. Annexure- P/2. .^'2^. :''%. xr?- •^^^ ^•s^ *^?^ ^... 'y ^T^T^ (<^i+ ^R ^^ W!^ ^^ o^ 3^ST ^l<410^i, ^Tfl-H^KS, {c)(?'>l-y^< *<INdl **<|cb •^ 200 3ni?r ^^ (^f^^-r) '^TTWHf^T^^T — 2-. b. Issuewritof for next 30 years of P/3 as modified c. Issue writ of Mar| Rs.5200/- recoveretl ANURAKSHAN SHLJLKA" d Any other relief wjtl^ costs. MandaAnus and dipect tiie R&A to renew the lea^ |Rs.ll7/- (Rs.78/- + 50%) as per the terms si|ibsequently only wrt. rent. (damus and direct the RDA to refund under duress in the name of 'SADAK Srievance of the petiti with respondent No,l vide given on lease to 1+ie petitio^ rent of Rs.130/-, however. w| petitioner was pGE/ing annual last 30 years. Respondent 7.9.2007 revised the annual rfe in the lease amount payable rent @ 6<5% was also sought the lease amount cmd thus, a ^i Learned counsel for enhancement is contrary +4 agreement of Annexure P-3 enhance the annual rent to thb cm^i^rf <RTR^f ^^^ <i^i<^i< ^3TRTH3^T i^ner is that he entered into an agreement An|iexure P-3 whereby the disputed land was rjer for a period of 30 years on the yearly |th the mutual consent of the parties 1+ie t|ent of Rs.78/- to the pespondents for the No.l vide order of Annexure P-1 dated snt of tiie disputed land ond enhanced 50% ?y the petitioner* Apart from 1+iis, Nazul l-o be imposed with the premium of 8.5% on ^um of Rs.254/- was fixed as annualrent. the petitioner submits that the above the terms and conditions of the lease Imd respondent No.l was not competent to it extent GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000. "-;-;-'S^^1 ^l-HC—78 w ^ ^ ..,^-y 3^cT^|<4i<^^, ^Tfi-y^Ko, fs|<»')|^^< 3TT^T ^T RrlJch TT^T ^TT^T 5h^i<=b ftoshan/- ^l^ldl 9h4lGb •"^ 200 3?T^?T'q^F ( ^1<S<<^ ) '^ITW^f^T 3?T^T -s ©rievanceof the petitio chi^(<n<fl'i *ii^<;iT ^fe^t <F3i^i< '^3?if?W3TT^T I have heard leamed ^ounsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the averments in the p^tition. ^er is that he was paying annual rent @ Rs.78/- in place of Rs.130/-, o^ mentioned in the lease deed. with the •( mutual consent for the last 3(p years; Rs.5,200/- was recovered under duress by RDA in 1+ie name of 'Sadak Anurakshoin Shulka'. J^us. from perusal of the relief cfause it i| are involved in -rtiis petition wi| evidence of 1+ie parties by 1+ie ^ evident that disputed questions of fact ich can be decided only after recording Civi( Court in a properly constituted civil maintainable. Consequently, I.A| However, the order pos^ suit and the same cannot be d^cided in the writ petjtion under ^rticte 226 of the Constitution of Indit In view of the above, fhe jnstant petition is dismissed as not No.l also stands dismissed* ®din this petition shalt not come in the way of petitioner if civil procjeedjng is jnitiated by him for the same relief. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge