^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SingleBench : Hon'bte Shri S.R. NAYAK, CJ PETIT10NER RESPONDENTS M.C.C.No.267of2006. Bal Ashram A society registered and incorporated under Sooiety Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, having at Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, Represented through the Secretary, Shantilal Parekh, Son of Late M.L Parekh, Resident of Kutchery Chowk, Bal Ashram Campus, Raipur (C.G) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Firms and Sooieties, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G) 2. The Registrar, Firms and Societies, {0' - 5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur(CG.) 3. The Assistant Registrar, Fjnns and Societies, (0'-5, Anumpam nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Preserst: Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A., for the State/respondent 6RDER (Passed on 20th July, 2008) To keep the record straight I am constrained to obsen/e that the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Apex Court that the High Court white passing the order "has omitted certain factuat aspects", js factually incorrect. Even in the course of hearing of this review petition, the Court pointedly asked the iearned counse! for the petitioner as towhich are the factuai aspects which were omitted by the Court while passing the order, learned counsel was answerless. The order sought to be reviewed was dictated in the open Court in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. (2) Be that as 'rt may, the order is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the tease of the land by the Government granted originaily in favour of Batkishan Nathani who donated the same to the petitioner--Society could not be regarded as "grant of land" within the meaning of that term in terms of the -<^' Government Grants Act, 1895. There is no need to decide this question for the purpose of deciding the tis brought before the Court in the present writ petition. What falis for decision-making, as already pointed out in the order sought to be reviewed, is whether the petitioner-Society coutd be regarded as "State aided society" in terms of Clause (f) of Section 3 of the Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short 'the Adhiniyam5). There is no need for me to state or refer to what is atready stated in the order sought to be reviewed in elaboration. Assuming that the lease obtained by Batkishan Nathani and renewal of the same land subsequently by the petitioner-Sociefr/ c^nnot be regarded as a "grant" within the meaning of the Government Grants Act, 1^95, even then, that itsetf would not come to the aid of the petitioner to contend tt^at the petitioner- Society is not a "State aided society". Any society which has received aid, grant or loan or has received land or buitding or both on concessional rates and other facitities from the Central Government or State Government or any statutory body would be a "State aided society". In other words, the tand received by the petitioner-Society or its donor need not be a land received only through under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895. Since the donor and the petitioner-Society have admittedly received Govemment land free of cost, that woutd satisfy the definition of "State aided society1' as defined under Ctause (f) of Section 3 of the Adhiniyam. Looking from any angle, there is absolutely no ground made out to review the order. The review petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. - Sd/- ChiefJustice ^'