Vl^fH HIGH_CQURT_QECHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT WRIT PETmON <Q No. 4894 of2009 : Dilip Kumar Oidwaai, son of Late Keshavdas Oidwani, aged bout 36 years, Proprietor M/s. Sakshi Wires, resident of P-47, Kavita N%ar, Raipur. VERSUS : Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, a Govanment <rf Chattisgar undertaking, through its Matiaging Director, Bhartiya Jeevan Bima Nigam Ccmunercial Complex, Pandri, Raipw (C.G.) PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF FNDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihatri. J. Present: Shri B.P.Shanaa, Advocate for the petitioner. Sliri KasliifShakeel, Advocate fortlie respondent. ORDERfORAL) (Passed on 02M day of September, 2009) 1. Grievance ofthe petitioner in the present ease is that despite payment ofan amount ofRs. 1,80,000/- as required under the letter dated 10 June, 2009 (Annexure P/2), possession oftfae lease-hold land i.e. Shed No. 59-C, situated at Industrial Area. Urla, Raipur, has not been handed over to Ifae petiticmer. fa suppwt of this ccmtartion, Shri Sharma, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a ' demand letter dated 10"' June, 2009, shed sale deed dated 10th June, 2009 and &rther, a receipt ofpa5'ment of Rs. 1,80,000/- dated 20<1 July, 2009 (Ajinexure P/4) pursuant te the letter dated 10* June, 2009. >N - 2. ^' Anrit 2. Shri Kashif ShakeeL leamed counsel appearing for the respondent subnuts tiiat the petitioner is required under the provisions ofrelevait niles as well as conditions prescribed in the said sale letter to supply the registered Conveyance Deed of shed No. 59-C to the respondert before the possession is handed over to Ihe petitioner. Shri Shakeel further subnrits that on supply offhe registered Conveyance Deed of sfaed No. 59-C, steps shall be taken to hand over 1he possession, as prayed by tiie petitioner in this petition. Shri Shakeel also submits that ifthe petitioner approaches fhe respondent to supply all thenecessary letters or documents, the needfal shall be done as expeditiously as possible. 3. In view of the fwegoing, I am of the view that no adjudication is necessarv and Ihe parties will act as aforestated, in accordanee with law. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge