HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Lo A 5 330/ 03 Writ Appeal (_P._r) No.5409 of 2009 APPELLANTS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh thrbugh Respondents No.1 to5 Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mamraiaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Secretary, Government of , Chhattisgarh, Department of 'i, Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 3. The Secretary, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Department of Urban ' Administration and Development Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 4. The Secretary, Government of . Chhattisgarh, Department of Town r and Country Planning, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur The Sub-Divisional Offlcer, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Versus 1. Geetangali Constructions (Colonizer Developer and Buiider), A Partnership Firm registered under indian Partnership» Act, 1956, through its Partner Sant Ram Sahu, Sio Shri Mutan Ram Sahu, aged 53. years, R/o Geetanjaii House, Nehru Nagar, Ameri Road, Biiaspur (CG) J ‘ 2. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS: Petitioner (Respondent No.6) Gram: Panchayat,‘ Mangia, through its Secretary, Distt. Biiaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Respondent Nor?) Present: Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/appeilants. , Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’bie Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. JUDGMENT (4—11-2009) 1‘ This writ appeal is listed on default. 2. The appellants have preferred this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for shod ‘the Act’) against the interim order dated 7-8-2009 passed in WP(C) No.2724109 preferred by respondent No.1. 3‘ Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench against the interlocutory order and the appeal can be preferred against such order regard being had. to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. Reliance is piaced on Full Bench Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Arvind Kumar Jain & Ors. V. $tate of Madhya Pradesh a Ors. {AIR 2007 MADHYA PRADESH 276}. i 5. ln the instant case, from perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that the'same has been passed on the ground that, they provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Registration of Colonizer, terms g and conditions) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules’) are not applicable to the present case. lt has been also observed that minimum area in the land in dispute is less than 5000 sq. meter, whereas the definition of wE ccionizer under Section 2(b) of the. Ru!es prescribes minimum plot area of 5000 sq. meter. ' 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that !earned Single Judge has arrived to the conclusion that area of respondent No.1 is less than 5000 sq. meter whereas the whole area for which project of respondent No.1 was sanctioned was much more than 5000 sq. meter. 7. Learned Single Judge bythe impugned order virtually recorded a finding which is conclusive in nature and, therefore, the bar contained in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act would not come in way of fiiing writ appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. We have perused the impugned order as also the memo of appeal. 9. From perusal of the order under challenge. it is clear that in the impugned order after recording the submissions of learned counsei for the petitioners the effect and operation of the order passed by the SDO (Revenue) (Anexure—PH) has been stayed until further orders considering the facts situation of the case. 1o. From perusal of the order of the SDO, which was produced for our perusal by Shri Harit, it appears that SDO by its order has declared the colony constructed by the respondent/petitioner as illegal. imposing penalty of Rs.23.000/—, transfer of plots have been declared'null and void] The order of forfeiture of the right, title or interest of the colonizer in the land under illegal colonization has been passed under Section 61 -G of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 and a N V n r_ ’\,\ the same has been vested in Gram Panchayat Mangla. ‘\d x