. N! THE HIGH COURTMOF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU CHHATISGARH ' " i X I s WRIT PETITION NO. 1278 [2003 k a P‘ETITIONER :-‘ :1] 1 Vljay Ratan Lal Rhth1 aged about - ' I 52 years, S/o §hr1 Ratan Lal _ :.Rath1 Partner abhat Talk1es, :. ~Ra1pur, res1dent of Mangl Lal . , Plot Amrawatl Maharashtra] .;! l ' ‘ x2] ' j Rajendra Darbar S/o Shr1 Pr1thv1 v aj Darbar,, aged about 44 years i rbar Bhawan Near Prabhaf 1k1es, GanJpara Ra1pur [C G ] . ”ERSUS ’ REsPNDENTs ,1].~,’;» State of Chhatt1sgarh Through—, he Secretar epartment , I R i : . ‘ - ' R " a a V b 3 ’L I: I t y D of? T tlo " ‘Mun1c1pa1 Corporatlon Ra1pur _ - rbody 1ncorporated under sect1on/u v ' h ‘7 of Madhya Pradesh Mun1c1pa1 Corporatlon Act,, 1956 hav1n Act,, perpetual g eucaessmn ‘eommonr’seal, having 1t offl Road-,NRaipur: [Chhaftisgarh] WRIT PETITIONUNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ ‘ ‘ H GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BIL WRIT ETlTlON NO 1 278 O 2003 . ; F Vy Ll th& Ath . ija Ratan a Raix noer Versus 8tate of (hhattlsn h & Another ‘ r , K (W Iti‘lietllon uner rice o e onqtuutlon 0 Ind ‘ND‘EW l g rl J R Verma Advocate for the entlone h prs hadun ane awer or te at ‘ ln B graw enior voc w ’MsLMe J‘ais r eard learned counsel for the artie H ps rp p e é egy d 'etition, the etitioners sekuto ch .tene the lam an t 800 (At/Q) dthe de‘r he orderda’ted 07/0/21 nnexureP an- o‘r /o3/2oo3 (Annexure P/1 b whrc the State Governmen n 5 o oecton In pore exercrse o owers uner su seclo p p /} ct vof C hattrsgarh Munlmal Cororatron Act 1956(for short “the A h fd t pet th la ed as reuse to accord sancron un te c of e eSe de ' bf f dpl th tht th d in The f ts in rie or isosa of e case are a e lan w y lltd to Bb ll S gh Beb ho as initiall aote au -ari V n rer, w thh dig th pt Bab Hari ecinemaJall; Accoi‘n'to e etiioner, u rba leased out the nema hal to he father of the ,, r Ci l t " petition on 24/3/ 956 au Hari in arber ie on /l‘3 ‘er 1 Bb Sgh B dd 21/4/2 dth PtJ Sgh Db bght on } and onihis ea his son rihVira in arar was rou d t‘ s his legal representative PrithViraJ Sgh Db fhr recor iin arar urte ‘ ' ekecll a’e‘' i vo o aer of e eiiorie HQ/1797 o . per o '’eat hi dptd o‘n s aoe s l l i ted leasdeed n faur f the fth th pttron Prithvrj Sigh died orit 'ra n ’T the t d on “6 fr a iod f IOys; hus; : propery devolve I ASPUR ,sPOS t d Atl 227 f th C f ia) f81hrl P K B Pl Ly f h Ste. ysh H Aa I S Adaio h era WaL‘; i0 ) y § t ‘ ’ ‘ p td f p d b t () f t 80 ‘d I’in favour of the petitioner. it arrgey Rajendra Smgh Darbar Rajendra Slngh Darbar also, L n ‘ ’ exe ‘uted a lease deed m favour of the father of the petmoner for a . v period of 10 years wef 1/11/1983 There Is no dispute that the "Jand Was never allotted to the petitioner by the IVIunICIpal [Corporation on lease or othenmse The petmoner clalmthg to be ‘v ‘ 1 : ‘ 1 t t k Waesggnee It appears continued to be m possessron of the, cinema v ' t i ,1 , A. constructed on the land m drspute According to tho learned l ‘ hall V ,ooul for the petltloner on the baSls of agreement which led to . [wlt dralwal of CIVII sult No 10AI82 flled by Rajendra Kllmar on H‘25l2/1Q87 (Annexure — P/4) the respondent Corporation l o‘exerclse of Its power under Section 423 (1) (1T) of the Act 19 r t l .‘ ‘resolved to allot the land In dispute to the father of the petltloner ”namely, Ratan Lal Rathl on certam condition he resolutlon of ‘ I, T 1‘ jg‘ et N 'h L ; ’ ew e l, ‘ tiv s t pendency ofvk the ecommendation before the State Govment Ti'iuei th .V mpugned order Is null & veid and the same may be quashe _ t l l j {allotment of lease for a period of 30 years was subject to approval: of 9tate Government which was rejected by the Impugned order j y dated 7/8/2001 (Annexure P/9) Thus this petltlon ‘Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the : respondent authorltles passed the Impugned orders In a cryptic & a t mechanical manner and without application of mind l’h l‘iipetitioners being the asSIgnee of Babu Hari ‘Singh Darbar have "vested right of renewal In view of the prOVISIons of Section 2 of the‘ V Actr 1956 The Impugned order Is,_v0Id .ab Init/o and is per s without Jurisdiction and suffers from non applicatIOn of mind The :Irespondents have acted arbitrarily and unfairly In dealing with th T ‘case of the prInCIples enshrined under Articles 14ian’d 19(1),(g)vof ‘ » Constutionof india.. Even otherWIse the Impughed order wa r s i nse l T : ; ' Ir em e/1T1 I ‘ x ‘ 1, V 1 i i n th her h l in t muned action taken b t h Se a p p dnt i he rQspondent authormes learned counsel appearing for te tat s well as resondent Cororation submit that the resapene 1 ’a ftr ’ uthorltles have nghtiy passed the Impugned orders ae enaldermg all the aspects of the matter In Its letter an spir u Ur r d it ths ie:s}ame do not warrant any Interference by thus Court and th pe§t n ma be dismissed as the petitioners are not entItILd o an ‘k lieflfrom this C . ‘ L' I g h d th 'reard to the contention of the petitioners that smce te ore! a gan p d f the i ssed alst a erson who died during penency o smehdtiob h a e Of the I omanefore te Stte Governmnt is’ onceined, 't p j dthe ei‘ntion‘ of the etitioner is reected on the groun-uthatp s p g t Lal olution was assed for rant of lease in favour of Raan R o 0701 atl‘il n 03/04/1 987 when he was alive A letter dated ()Ci//20 w se t p f h lton as lnt o the State Government for aproval o te resoui er" olution d 03/04/1987 was not approve y e ta ov rnment Vide order dated 07/08/2001 Tus impugned ord on the ground of mentioning the name of atan Lal ati ih t ub t a is not Vitiated as no ste ha's been taken by th -.‘ h f Rn Ll Rth b ny petitioner to substitute te name o ata a ai y a p ratn, bere e a i i t , » ap io fo th Stte A s contention of the petitioner that since miJ'ed ‘order'was passe in review filed b son of atan tii ncernthe‘rcontenion is c ed on a simte roun at mere mentioning of name o Vij al‘ Rathi, the resent petitioner) in the revisionaltorer al r rder ‘ > \ ‘ :1 1" > ; i x ‘ 0 L ot and whie supportg he ipg y “t e t o y t y r ourt :iduring pendency of the said approval Ratan Lal Ruthi died t i tie date d b th Ste ‘ G h er ‘i a Rh he. V s c mtter p e Government I : ‘ s far a thejsecond the i ipign d y R Lal V'Rafi s coedrsaid]t further notied to be t p gd th f ay L ( p d so not Vitiate the earlie o pa} e dlsute With regard to the fact asto whether the father of th p e a g it potition The fact remains that resolution to allot the land In disput 1 n. . l d bjt t L d - he esll does not confer an nght seeklng executlon of th e! deed ursuant to the resolutlon Since the petitioner has no o y g ft f? on exrstent riht can be passed y rs our \ l JOr t ess mentrone eremov re f‘r i liable tobe andis hereb? smissed. owevr,‘ rtie f a aylbe available to the petitioner seeking eclaration o ls righ rouh the lease executed between the fathejr of the peioner and abu Hari Sinh Darbar an ts ega tivei adVied e SEV- s n' atish K- Asnl'hot 1 t t t t .p%htioner ws or not assrnee cannot be deCIded In thrs wr oér pe§rmanent lease of 30 years by the respondent Corporatlo l “oeslnoti confer any right on the petltloner» asthe same was‘sueo o ap;)roval of the State Government which was ultimately rejecte l T routon y e _' leas p t qulred an rlht no writ or order directing enorcemen o n g b th Ct’ F he raon d habe, eft omeit s y He it enay orum tht m f h t; z g tit i so I p k t s oen to the petitioner to tae recourse f T b d t ts here shall e no orer aso cos e writ petitiOn, being If B g d h ll resenats l 1 i'