INTHE HIGrH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^^s^s. ^-•'•" .^^^p'" F-*'„„**" ^-" .•^t~" ^- RESPONDENTS: ^^ &Z3-/ ^" o. ?^E)2-3__ Of 2008 W.P.(S).No._^D_ «-''" Jawahar Khanna Aged about 41years, S/o LateShri K.K. Khanna, R/o AwantiVihar, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS If The State of Chhattisgarh Through: The Secretary, Nagariya Prashashan Vibhag, Mantralaya , D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Nagar Palik Nigani Raipur Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 8s 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE •-^WRITfS) OR ORDER(s) OR DIRECTIONS(S) \‘y resolution No.59 dated 1-9—1998 passed by the Municipal Corporation. Thus, these petitions. Shri Sharma, Shri Bhaduri land Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submit that the recommendation made by the Corporation way back in the year 1998 and the rate which was considered by the State Government, ought to have taken into consideration the prevailing rate in the year 1998. The State Government after having taken about 9 years in consideration of the resolution dated 1—9-1998 of the Corporation, applied the Collector rate as on 2008i Thus, the petitioners have no occasion t0 make the payment of premium at the prevailing rate. Thus, the order dated 27—3—2008 passed by the State Government is not sustainable in law, as the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submit that there is no reason to take more than 9 years in considering the resolution dated 1-9-1998 passed by the Corporation. Now the circumstances have changed in 2008. Even the rates have enhanced substantially, Thus, the order passed by the Secretary is perverse and illegal. The rate was offered in the year 1998, the State Government ought to have considered the resolution passed by the Corporation within a reasonable time may be within 3 months or 6 months and for such delay there is no explanation or justification on the part of the State Government. Learned counsel next submit that under proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994, if the Corporation is of the opinion that holding public auction may be dispensed The public auction was r not necessary. j i r-\ 'etUrh‘Dn 10—92009. :Para 7‘2 t Is respectfully submitted that the standi, . committee of the respondent No 2 by resolut/ont' l , no 59 dated 01/09/1998 It has been reso/ved _ that the land In question would be converted Into r » permanent /ease from temporary /ease at the “premium of Rs 50/- per sq ft and at 75% -annua/ rent subject to' sanction from the answering respondent In pursuant to the said proposal the petitioner has deposited to‘the tune wOf Rs 3 65 4b0/Qas premium It Is peltlnent to mention here/n that as per the guldellne Issued by the Collector Ralpur forthe year 2007-08 the - market value of the said land Is Rs 9085/ per sq _’ meter and as per the said guldellne the market value of the land In uest/on comes at Rs 61 70 144/- Shrl Sanjay K Agrawal Advocate appearmg With Shrl Sudee ) p i ' A pt ‘ grawal & Shrl Pankaj Agrawal Advocates for the resonden Corporation submits that there Is no resonse to the fact ast -‘ p o whether preVIous sanctron of‘the State Govrnmnt wa taken fo ‘ ee g r ispensingiWith he reui‘rementof holding of aUCtion, but theé h g V ctat as been doneby‘W‘ay of resolutibn keepin in iew the fa’th i he petitioners haVe been residing on the disuted remises o the b poray lase. asis of temr e l h r ‘ni d - have eard leaned couselappean’ng ’for the parties, peruse e peains and the documents apended thereto. Th p en ws mad ere is no disute that reCommendation for allotmt a e ‘ t L- e tt p s peiioners were already residing on the disuted area on the baSI J Q of g o m L temporary lease ranted to them However there is n ention in theproceedings or othenlilie asto whether reVious sanction ”the State overnment beforeta‘king resolution to dispense h publicaucton for granting the permanentease to the petit} i 'l iOners wh s i o were’tempo‘rary‘lease holders, was done. The fact remain s p of G ' wit ' r of I ng ‘L ' q d t q‘ ame ' t p p n th ldg p on he basis of resolution dated 19‘1998 on the basis that th @x that the State Government has taken about 9 years in granting approval or disapproval on the resolution dated 1-9-1998 passed by the Corporation. Thus, the petitioners were permitted to continue on the same place for a further period of 10 years Delay on the part of the officer, who has considered the resolution after a period of 9 years, has further complicated the matter on creation of State of Chhattisgarh, pursuant to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. City of Raipur has assumed a greater importance, as Raipur has been made capital of the State of Chhattisgarh and prices have also increased manifolds. Shri Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Adv‘ General appearing for the State, submits that the resolution was received on 2-9—2004t Letter dated 2—9-2004, which is referred in the impugned order, is produced; the same is taken on record. The letter dated 2—9-2004 is a reminder, as there is a clear reference of sending of proposal on 14—10-1999. Thus, the aforesaid contention of Shri Kachhawaha that the communication was received by the State Government from the Corporation for the first time on 2-9—2004 is contrary to the facts . 10. On failure to take action on letters dated 14/10/1999 and 2/9/2004 by the authorities, the petitidners were driven to approach this Court by filing petitions being W.P. Nosf3878, 4818, 5973, 3879 & 3880 of 2006, respectively. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court in the year 2006 with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of lease within a period of six months. Thereafter, the authorities woke—up and decision was taken on 27'3—2008 i.e. after lapse of more than one and half year. \\\\ ‘ Having regard to the facts situation of the case, the impugned order is not sustainable, as the rate was fixed in the year 1998and thereafter, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to make the payment. The petitioners very categorically submit that they are ready and willing to pay the premium at the Collector’s rate prevalent today with other fees, tax, etc. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 27-3—2008 (Annexure—P/1 in all writ petitions) is quashed. However, having regard to the facts situation of the case, liberty is reserved to the Corporation to consider cases of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. The Corporation may consider preferential treatment to the petitioners as on the basis of resolution passed earlier, the petitioner have awaited for a long period more than 10 years and. they have been on the disputed land on the basis! of'temporary lease. ’13. The petitioners have been suffering since 1998 when the resolution was passed though the petitioners were allowed to continue in the disputed premises on the basis of temporary lease. The Corporation, if so advised, may take previous sanction of the State Government for dispensing with the requirement of auction, as provided under the proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions all the writ petitions stand disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge