HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BtLASPUR W.P.(C) N0.4902/2010 PET8TIONER Prakash Rathore S/o Late Shri Dayaram Chapshi, aged about 55 years, Dayaram And Sons, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 3. 4. 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), Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) WRiT PETiTION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Rahui Tamaskar, Advocate forthe petitioner. ?v1r. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.l/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. W.P.(C) N0.4902/2010 SUNIL KUBSAR SJNHA.J. ORAL ORDER (18.01.2011) Heard finally v/ith the consent of learned counsel forthe parties. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:- 10. Relieffsl Souaht "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case ofthe petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make renewal ofthe leaso 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 earlier. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems frt and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost ofthepetition." The petitioner's father was granted lease for an area of specified plot situated in Ganj Padao, Raipur. This lease was granted for a period of 30 years commencing frorn the date contended in the lease deed. Mr. Tamaskar submits that before expiry of the lease period, an application was filed before the Municipal Corporation, Raipur for extension/renewat/new grant of the lease of the said plot, but the application filed for extension/renewal/new grant is still pending before the Corporation and rio dedsion has been taken till date. Mr. Pankaj Agrav^l, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, subrnits that if the application filed for grant/renewal of the lease for the subject plot for which the eariier lease vvasgranted, has not been disposed of by the Corporation, the Corporation shall take a decision on the said application. However, he submits that a reasonable time may be granted to the Corporation to take a decision in the matter of grant/renewal of the lease of the subject plot. It is not disputed that the petitioner Is holding the possession of the subject piot. !t is also not dlsputed that the subject plot was granted on lease to the father of the petitioner. j 1 I. "~:'"11!111 '%. '"9^.^ ^vc^^^y W.P. (Cl N0.4902/2010 In the above facts and circumstances of the case, 1 deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with the direction to the Munlcipal Corporation, Raipur that if the application for grant/renewal of the lease of the subject plot has not been disposed of by the Corporation till date, the Corporation shall dispose of the sajd application within a period of 3 months from today and shall communicate the decision to the petitioner. Ifthe decision has already been taken by the Corporation, the same shall also be communicated to the petitioner by the Corporation. Mr. Rahui Tamaskar submits that the petitioner apprehends that he would be forcibly disposed by the Corporation on the pretext that the period of lease has aiready 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 for dispossession of the petitioner form the subject plot by the Corporation before final decision of the pending application for grant/renewal of lease before the Corporation. With the above observations/directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. There shaii be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge