30 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Sinale Bench: - Hon'ble Shri S.R. NAYAK, C<J ./- '^ m PETITION N0.5751 OF 2005 Petltloner: Respondente: Kumar Mukherjee, Aged about84years, S/o Late Shri Manoranjan Mukherjee; R/o Darogapara, PO & Dlstrict: Ralgarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Throygh: Revenue, Mantraiaya, DX.S. Bhawan, PO & District: Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raigarh PO & Distt: (C.G.) Present: Mr. B.R. Ghosh, counsei forthe petitioner. Mr. Thakur, Govt. for the . OR D E R (Passed on 22nd of November This writ how an unscrupulous to the perij of the and by to processes could on the publlc property rough.ly for ftvo ^fterthe expiry ofthe le^se period, 2. The are and stra{ghtfop«vard. The petltioner was the property on temporary }n the year 1974 for a period up to 1986. Aithough the petStioner sought renewai of the after the expiry of the period, admittediy, the was not renewed.. 31 -2.- M ^ Nevertheless, It appears that the petitioner highhandedty squatted on the public property for a iong period of 13 years. When the matter stood thus, jn the 1999, at the instance of the Officer.it that the District ColSector concerned thought It fit to evict the petltioner from the At the the Commtesioner by wsy of an appeal ^nd the Commtesioner, it appe^r^, rem^nded the proceedinge to the District Cotleator to consider the request of the potitionor d^-novo aflQf notioo to tho petitionor. Whon tho mattor stood thus, this writ petition was presented under Article 226 of the Constjtution of india, seeking intervention ofthe Court. 3. Thi^ Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of indla could bejnvoked by an aggrieved citizen or a person to enforce i'ights. On tha of it, I do not find any of {egairight in the writ petitioner to this Court under Articie 226 of the of any the 1-986, the petltloner did not any rlght whatsoever to on the subject prQperty. It is not the contsntion of Mr. B,R. Ghosh, Jearned counse! for the potitioner th^t in terms of iaw, the seoond respondent Colleotor J3 tegali'y bound to renew the lease or grant the fresh leaso. It is prerogative of tne Government ana' Gov©mm©ntalauthoritios how to dispose of their jt is not tna right of ths to insist the Distnct is dufry'-bound to grant the jn hls favour simply the Commissioner has remsnded the proceedings to the Dlstrict Collector to pass considered order notlce to the petltloner. That fact would not be a aid for this Court to put the of authority on apparentiy IJIegal act on the part of the writ petitioner. On account of this 9<ibb^ m FL';L 32 -'5- iengthy litlgatlve process Oissi the part of the petitioner, the pubiic justice has aiready suffered irreparable injury. 4. in the result, the writ petltion ss dismissed with exemplary coste quantlfied at R^.5,000/- and the same is payablQ to the High Court Sarvlcas Commlttee vvithin a period offrwo vv'aeks fromioday. Sd/-, Chief Justice