^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Risviavi p&nnoi^l /-, , ik MtSGT-GIVHb-€ASS-NO. '.^1 /2006 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS •:>'••' r^) \ i "^h K)iiAkfi,A*l in-^ ^ Smt. Reeta M. Jethani, wife of Shri Manohar Jethani, aged about 36 years, resident of by side of Hotel Kohinoor, Baanstall, Amardeep Talkies Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 7 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ' Through - Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department, (Mantralaya) D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). ^ Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through - Municipal Commissioner, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.j. 3. Smt. Madhubala bedi, Wife of Late Manjeet Pal Singh, resident of New Khursipaar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 1^-T'^ AgPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DATED 06.09.2006 \^v!:c:cw'"a^'f'\ .//A' y PASSED IN W.P. N0. 4865/2006. XI-HC-22 sn^rw fSaraian^T StlliehTrf?(T Stllleh ssT^rpn^ra', ts'Tnu'is, Ricii+f^ 311^1 ^iach w —R^;K^;. .^1.^ ' ^A KltlMlsbKi* ^•^••l-^-••••••—'•• ^ 200^ ^^.................... 31T^T ?T(TRR HfN' ifi<bl 23.2.2007 ?in ChaaesberS This petition has beer^ 6.9.2006 passed in W.P.No.' was filed for quashment 18.9.2000, by which, the issued a direction that the and residential use belongt(i Corpoiation, Bhilai, be leased out by fhe Coip<J! Govenunent. It was inentiond-c being inade on adinuiistrativej in fhe writ petition was tha^ portion ofland in the specifi<('( agreeinent with the petitione^ she is ready to surrender her] she has no objection if fhe Furfher prayer in fhe writ pe\ has been imposed by the Govj land is not being atlotted and| the petitioner and responde^ which, icpi"sentations were which are not being decided has furtfaer prayed to issiie <(> i^sf)ondents no. 1 and 2 tc '< 26.5.2006 and 5,5.2006 in eisltwhile cfpen sponde^it aflt '*>l'i|Fri41-1 ilWvfi fr' fSCS TfsfRR ^srf^ITSfl^T filed for reviewing the order dated ^65/2006. The aforesaid writ petition bf the Govemmeat's order dated State of Madhya Pradesh had lands pertaiiung to coinniercial ^ig to the possession of Municipal ^riiig 38000 square ineters shaU not >iation until further ordera by the ^d ia fhe order fhat the prohibition is groiinds. The claiin of he petitioner respondent no.3 possesses certain area and she has enteicd into an on 17.8.2005, according to which, rights in favour of the petitioner and is given on lease to the petitioner, ition was, that smce fhe pKfhibition /jenunent by the impngned orier, the the ayeement entered into befaveen no.3 is not being enforced, for I fitled before respondents ao. 1 & 2 |and in this situation, fhe petitioner appropriate directions directmg fhe ^ decide her representation dated Awordaace wifh law with a furfher (^y^) lahd XI-HC-22 7S{ ^iqidA), (S'Tny'IS, RlOK-iy an^rw fN^'CT^T giifw<rf?cr *Tmwi sh*<ict> 311^1 ^ach —.Pf^:.t^-.;.3.l.... \^'. H^ 200^ f^s 3n^T8?cITWH(?(T ••2-- intuu rtiini! bet^een direction to aBot the subject ^ basis of the agreement ente| respondent no.3. This court after hearidR disnussed the aforesaid writ 1y by the govenuncnt in the u4] coinpletely based upon ad4i Goverainent and furfher tfaat! regariing grant of lease luide^ onty icnpose teiapoiaiy impe^ So far as the agreeinent no.3 is oonceraed, this Coiut binding on asy third party Corpoiation aad ao rights iu( eifher agaiast the State or a^ petition for such an enforcent' About the representation, tl^ statatory representation and represeutation is aot reqiiired The review petition has simQarty placed persons bax fherefore, the simflar treataK petitioner and secondly, fhe pc land has been said to be thal correct. ind in favoiu- of the petitioner on the •d into between the petitioner and giraf^pft^ iTTtraf ir'fe^ Tf^TRrc ^sri^pTsn^r / leamed counsel for fhe petitioner letition holding tfaat fhe action taken ipugned order dated 18.9.2000 was auustrative decision taken by fhe it does not unpose a complete ban fhe Transfer of Property law, but it iiment on certain intemal grounds. the petitioaer aad respondenit leld that the agreement would not be |including the State or the iniinicipal tder the agreement can be enforced ^ainst the Corpoiation and the writ ^ent, in aay manner, would not He. kis Court said that it is not the ^ direction for disposal ofa general 1:0 be issued by this Court. |been ffled on the ground that some |Fe been aHotted the similar land, ^nt should have been given to the i|ssession ofrespondent no.3 over the lof fhe encroacher which is also not (ifl^^Rdi)) XI-HC-22 3^ -^WM^, ^WW, Rlctl+iy 3T(^?T <^ach ^ P^-V ^\~, (do.7>l ^ <41*<WI sh*1|th """""""""""""" W]' 200,Jk, f^s""""""""" "'^ 3T)^T^T R-fi* sn^r sbt1 gf?cT 3n^r?¥cTrw;a1N ~s °hi<iF<"i<n-iw^i ii ts^S <Kiw,i<. ^STf^ITSD^T situatictas So far as the case of d pleaded vide para 2 ofthe revj year 1998. Admittedly, at tfaa^ 18.9.2000 (Annexure P-1 in Therefore, no rights can be because the prevailing present case are quite differen^ So far as ofher ponit no.3 is concemed, under Bhoondge, Grtho, Bhewein^ Vyeyem. Myaft, 197S, the Rule 2(a), according to xiyhicl[i Developinent Authority. It h^s Gcweminent land veste-d in 01 teansferred except with the ge Goverrunent given in that land (hereuiaflter called the ".' accordance wifh the rules i.e.1 that the "Authority land" (a) By direct (b) By public (c} By iavitiag (d) Under Conces' Rule 6 onwards provides suggestive of fhe fact tiiat the| (imilar treatment is concemed, it is T^BW petition that it was a case of the it time, the Govemnienfs order dated t|he main petition) was not enforced. [claimed on the gronnd of equality at the tiine ofearlier case and the eefaeral belialf. 7 x re^anling encroachinent by respondent Tfttha Oram. Mvesh Wkastt Tatha Anya Semrashantio Ktt lAuthorit}^ has been described vide [, it means tfae Town and Country is^s been provided vide Rule 3 that no inanaged by the Aufhorily shaU be or special saaction of the State Rule 4 provides that all ofher 'A^ifhority land"} shatl be transferred in Rule 5 onwards. Rule 5 envisages tiansferred as under:- with fhe partily; or i;or i; or idional tenns other conditions. AU these are llands which are to be aUotted under ((ft^^)^) shaUlbe neeofliatious auctlon tenflers; fdr XI-HC-22 3TI^T?iT f^'lNisil^T sbt(i*Hf?(T aiifi* l^o-o 1 TST -^WW^, W-^WIS, fsfcliuy *11*<MI ShHiqi 3T(^?T<^ach P&-V ^" 3< •\^', H^ '20 f^5% sn^TCTtiTWHfer -A section 58 ofthe principal A\ +i'iift'i41-i iwciT ff tec^' <Ri«i< ^sif^R'a.n^r ct e.., M.P (C.G) NagarThatha Gram Nivesh Adhmiyam, 1973 sttall either be the GoveEament land vested in or managed by ft^e authorily or the "Authority land", itself. Therefore, it is clea^ fhat any Govemment land or fhe Authoritj? land, as the case n|tay be, is not fhe laad belongmg to a 1 private person holding its po^session and he/she shaU be deemed to be the encroacher. I do not find any reasoi^ to review the eaiV.er order passed by tfais Court m W.P.No.4865/^006. This petition for review has no nierits and the same is dismii Counsel be infonned m(iaediately. sed in Chamber itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge (ifl^ysir)