S^ BE: ^ ^SS::10, ^.^•r^-*y:.. ^.^>/^^-'-"" -•^%^-""" ^^€^ \^y \^"" INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE OF CHHATTSGARH AT BILASPUjl W.P.No3^.J?/2005 PETTIONER5 '.- ^^f^S^" RESPONDENTS .VERSUS 1) 1) Shiv Kiunar Suighaaia S/o Janiuna lal Singhania Aged about 48 Years, (Plot No. 471) 2) Anin Kuinarjaia S/o KaUash Chand jain Aged about 36 years (Plot No. 465-A) 3) Purshottam Siaghaaia S/o Janiuna lal Siaghaaia Aged about41 years, ( Plot No. 465-B) All fhe Petitioners are resident of Sanita Colouy, Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) StateofC.G. Through: Secretary, Department of Urbaa Developinent, Maatralya D,K,S. Bhawaa, Raipur (C.G.) Muuicipal Corporation, Through : Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) Joiat Director Town & Country Planning Departnient, Raipur (C.G.) Saoita Co-operative Housuig Society, Through : Its President, Saoita Colony ~ Raipur (C.G.) Chhaparu Paachayat Trust Through : Its President Shri Hohaa lal Kesarwani Nahaipara, Bhagwati Matadoor, Traasport, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT(S) OR ORDER (S) OR DIRECTIONS(S) ETC. 11^/ ^^ ^^^/ 2) 3) 4) 5) The petitioners niost respectfuUy state as under : XI-HC-78 ^n^T^rf^ri^ cTSTT^TRSTshHl^ »11+1^11 ShHlch ~S^S ^ww^, yrd^'Ko, [s|<rtl'H^< W.P.^o. ^-/5 6/2-0^-5' t>^ 200 STT^TtraW (^<sli^cl<^8T) S^TW^cf^TI^T 04.10.2006 ShriY.C. Sharma, counst Shri SushU Dubey, respondents No. 1 & 3, Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. jp counsel for respondent No.2, Shri Raja Sharoia^ count Shri Sunil Otwani, coiia^el Ai^unients heard. Order dictated as foUow^ Orid Order (04 By way of fhis writ pet| tiie Constitution of India, fh^ Samta Colouy, Raipur, have ^ titie respondents, pardcularly shall not inake aay coinnxerci^l plots Nb. 472 & 473 (wrongly clause). It has furfher be^ constructed, should not be because tiie same is uot beiag tiidt The brief facts are different houses, situated ui ^ No.5 has also got soiae piece <^l^I^l^rl HPraY ^*f^t <fSl^i< ^^rf^T^TT^T ^el fbr fhe petitioners. Govt Advocate for (he State/ ^dvocate wifh Shri Paakaj Agrawal, sel for respondent No, 4. for respondent No.5. 10.2006) ^tion filed under Ardcle 226/227 of petitioners, who are residents of (rayed for issuaace of a writ against [agauist respondent No.5 tiiat they i^l-cuni- niarriage haU on fhe site of Inentioned as 272 & 273 in the reUef |n prayed fhat fhe buUding, so used for any coxaiaercial purpose |iaeaat for fhe said purpose. these petitioners are residing in ^aaita Colony, Raipiir. Respondent (|>f laad in the same Colony aad fhe; XI-HC-78 HW^TTSh+llch 7^( -^ww^, w^v\<o, ^wwy. ^^9^0. ^l^^l^O^ ^W^ 2UO 3<1^1 Mfth (yi^q^sT) 3T[^T^T^icb cW3TT^Tsh^l<=h ?^<TTW ^fN'3T^T have raised certain constructio alongwifh fhe residential prenjdses, a coniniunity centre aad a teniple etc. has also been con^ petitioiiers have taken fhis coastructing a buUding for coj of schemie No.9 aad is agains^ against the uitercst offhepeop] have filed fhis petitioa, ap^ constructed on the plote irx allowed to be used for coni] cbi^fci41^ ^i^cnT ^ ^ft <Ri<-di< ^3Tf^q'3:TT^T a over the sanie. It is stated that tnicted by respondent No.5. The ^round fhat respondent No.5 is [mnercial purpose as Gomniercial- cxun-inarriage hall, which is co^itnaiy to the lay-out of raaster plaa fhe rule of Housing Society and le residing nearby. The petitioners )rehending that if the buildiug }ossession of respondent No,5 is ^rcial purpose, it wiU crcate a nuisaace ia the residential a|'ea of tiie society and the saxne should be prohibited by issiiii^g fhe above pi^yed directions by Uiis Court. After issuaace of fhe noti appearance and it has also file| contended vide para 2 of the r^ of fhe aforesaid land. On fhe ce, respondent No.5 has caused its ^ ite separate rctara. It has been |tum fhat fhe said respondent has not constructed aay conuiiercia^-cuni-inarriage haU on aay portion contraiy, fhe said respondent has constructed a resideiitial-cuia-^oxDiniunity centre for fhe purpose of pronioting socio-religious ac|jvities. Further, in para 5 of fhe retura, it has veiy speci&<tally been nientioned fhat fhe pemiission, which has been ^ranted by respondent No.2 vide Anuexure R-l, clearly denionsfrates that it has been granted to niake constructioa for rcsidentjial purpose. Respondent No.5 had niade fhe statenient fhat fhe <<|aforesaid prcmises would be used XI-HC-78 *11*1CTI «t*1|Ct> 3"^ ^i^Krt^, ^Tfl^Ko, facnKiy ,t/o<f.Mo\^-;^A^s' ^200 RT^^cft w^i^rf^ri^ <T8rr 3TT^T ^TN? ?^<TTW ^cT ^TT^T ^ cM^f^i<TITi HTR^rf ^f tel^t <Ri<^i< ^3Tf^T3Ti^T for fhe socio-rcligious activity s|nd flie saiae would not be used for coolaiercial purpose^. paragi^phs Refemng to ftiese appearing on behalf of uiidertakiag ia fhe fonn of of respondent No,5, the relief claimed vide reUefclause respo4deat abotve gnevanjce offhe retum, leamed counsel No,5 subuiite fhat siace the statement is given in fhe retam raised by the petitioners and the f^o. 7.1 and 7.2, are satisfied. Leanied couiisel for resibondeat No,5 also takes me to fhe docunient Annexure R-l, whic^i is a sanction order, ia which vide para^ 14, it has been nientioned| /^rf Mul ^m^y uv^r ^ JN fiwiyiK ^ that 3/W^Srf ^TT 1 f^ft ^ ^B^ W ^ HRcicft ^^ 1 ^7 <f>l4cllS ^ ^ff 1 f^Rf^ ^°f uf^<f/^) ^fwr ^ wf ^ M I" He also takes me to fhe site it has further been mentioned for fhe proposed rcsidential rae to conviace fhaf in any ni< condition of sanction aad fhe use aiiy portion offhe preniises pl^a, fiiled as Annexure R-2, m which piat the saaction has been graated co^aplex. This all has been shown to ^nner, fhere is no violation of any ^espondent No.5 never intended to for aay coimnercial purpose. XI-HC-78 *11*1CTt ff»*(ld» 3:5^" ^tPTR:ra', ^Tliy'Ko, (s«Y<W^< , ltJ,P.Mo< ST/J^/Z^oS^ •^200 3il^i <4s|t(i (yI^cK^eT) 3TI^T^)T^i<=h ^T^^T^i Vatti ^-^/^ B^TTW ^fN' ^n^r — ^ un^ertakiag dyposed fhlis In view of fhe above in para 5 offtie retura and lo^ petition, fhere is no necessit^ niorc and fhe saxcie can be itself. In view of fhe above, fhis stage wifh fhe obserj^ ia accordaxice wifh the conditi^ been graiited permission by abide by fhe underfcakmLg given|by This petition staads fin^Hy observations. fbe <=tii^t<n41^ w^rf ff tel^)'<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^?T giveu by respondent No.5 >kmg to fhe relief(s) claiaied m fhe of prosecutiag tliis petition any of on fhe above undertakiag petition is finaUy disposed of at ration that respondent No.5 wiU act >ns of fhe sanctiou by which it has Corporation aad it witt also be it before this Court. disp^sed of with fhe aforesaid ^—-^ - - -—' Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O. i'