HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR WJPJCLN06174/2010 PETITIONER Suryakant Shukla S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan Shukla, aged about 75 years, Ganjpara, Station Road, Rai( (C.G.). RESPONDENTS 3. 4. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Town Administratjon and Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Municjpal Corporation, through Commissioner, Municjpal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. Rahui Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.l/State. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4. Mr. Surnesh Bajaj, Advocate for caveator, Raipur Development Authority, Raipur on the strength of General Caveat Petition No. 336/2010. ^^^w&^s^ ^/^i^ / II.. ^. '& 1 I ;| ^ilis^i' | ^.^?<^ ':"'-^.^y' SUNIL KUMAR SINHAJ. W.P.fC) N0.6174/2010 ORAL ORDER (18.01.2011) Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. T'ne petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefe:- 10. Relieffs) Souaht "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case ofthe petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make renewal ofthe lease of petitioner. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to oust the petitioner from the premises ieased out to him earlier. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost ofthepetition." The petitioner was granted lease for an area of specified plot situated in Ganj Padao, Raipur. This lease was granted for a period of 30 years commencing from the date contended in the lease deed. Mr. Tamaskar submits that before expiry of the lease period, an application was filed before the MunicipalCorporation, Raipur for extension/renewal/new grant of the lease of the said ptot, but the application filed for extension/renewal/new grant is stili pending before the Corporation and no decision has been taken till date. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, submits that if the apptication filed for grant/renewal of the iease for the subject plot for which the eariier lease was granted, has not beendisposed of by the Corporation, the Corporation shall take a decision on the said application. However, he submits that a reasonable time may be granted to the Corporation to take a decision in the matter of granVrenev^aI ofthe lease ofthe subject plot. it is not disputed that the petitioner is holding the possession of the subject piot. It is aiso not disputed that the subject plot was granted on lease to the petitioner. ^ ^y^^^ 1 % T JJ \,'isyy ;^%<^-^' '^ W.P.fCl N0.6174/2010 In the above facts and circumstances of the case, 1 deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with the direction to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur that jf the application for grant/renewal of the lease of the subject plot has not been disposed of by the Corporation till date, the Corporation shall dispose of the said application within a period of 3 months from today and shall communicate the decision to the petltioner. If the declsion has already been taken by the Corporation. the same shall also be communicated to the petitioner by the Corporation. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar submits that the petitioner apprehends that he would be forcibfy disposed by the Corporation on the pretext that the period of lease has aiready been expired and there is no further grant in favour of the petitioner. Since the petitioner is in possession of the subject plot, it is further directed that no coercive steps shall be taken for dispossession of the petitioner form the subject plot by the Corporation before final dedsion of the pending application for grant/renewal of lease before the Corporation. With the above obsen/ations/directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge