TfE HIGH COURT QF JUDECATURE AT BILASPUR (CHEATTISHARM WRIT PETITION NO} \ OF 2000 BEE’IWEEN Veerbhan Jindal Son o£ late shri Mahan Chand Jindal, Vyavaai(Conmercial) knd residential Centre ,Transport Nagar Korba Chlgattisgarh. aged about 50 years, resident ofrPlot No.12, Indra L PETI ’I'I ONER AND The state éf. Cbhattisgarh, Through the Director, Eagariya Prashesan and Vikas , RATLPUR ( CWTTISGARH) V The Comnissiener, V Municipal Corporation ,Korba.£ Estate O££icer (sampada Adhikari) , Hagar Palika Nigam,‘ Korba o (SADA KOREA) Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Palika , Korba a RESPONDENTS / RI'I‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 2261 227 OF TEE CONSTITUTION ( i is CY OI‘‘ INDIA ' ’7 ’1 M a W m; I ’ Chhattisgarh , 1mm mm‘fif‘? No' 25/2000 WI 200 mm (W) Wmm‘ mm wmr£ *Wm 14_/12/2000H I shri A. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Ranveer Singh, learned counsel for respon dent no.1 on advance copy. Heard ‘ The grievance of the‘petitioner appears; to be r that a plot o£ land whjrch should have been allotted to him @Rs.50/~ per square foot was offered to him 7, at Rs.200/— per square oot and when the petitioner unéer the circumstance and conditions was reaoy and willing to purchas ‘ it. he was denied the allot— ment and without takin, the petitioner‘s letter ~(mnexure—P/6) in its rue spirit. the re‘spondente noso 2 to.4 havecance led the allotment. According to the petitioner, he s entitled to the plot either at the original rate o Rs.SO/- Cr in the alternative at Rs.100/- per square oot. - Annexure—P/4 on w Vich strong reliance has hem placed by the petition r relates to the allotment 01E the original plotted a ea. Under AnnexureéA/S, an of£er was made to the etitionertor certain additional land V@ Rs.200/— per squ re toot. The pe2i tioner I\ t ‘a a — ’ Chhattisgérh , ‘Bi l\a_spur — y/v' ~ m ’ W 200 mamas: (W) éi’a‘Emm ‘ mmm deposited a sum of Rs.5Q,4"000/-. However, he raised a 'plea that (area’propo‘sed to him at Rs'.200/— per square foot be now all foot or his money be r unded back to him. Th respondent-:5 :accepting t e eerms o£ the letter. can— K celled the allotment‘an refunded the menéy; ’Byyno I, s'tretch of, iméginaticn, it can be said that the res- pondents tried to oppre s the petitioner or took, undte advantage of the ituationa When offer was made @ Rs.200/— per squ re £oct and the petitioner ’was not agreable to the .’. 2’J.‘ ted at Rs.100/— pep‘square‘ § e i . same, ho concluded contract ever cane into existen .‘ If/ in absence o£ a‘ concluded contract even a' decree be gaanted by a Civil urt, it would not be ‘for the High Court to the Constitution of Ind a. The petition .i dismis‘sgd‘: ,Kt- sdl- ‘ R.S.Garg Judge or specific performanc cannot c t effere under Article 226 of y i GRPRJ‘:—~FSI242——2/2000—‘30.000 . v, o c i