^s*' C^cw^ IN 'mE^HON'BLEHIGlLCOURTLQF CHHAJTLSGLARH^AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) No, _ At86 s'72006 PETITIONER A\^^n ^y^ .^^^ .-••" <«»"«.\:-" ^y K^" RESPONDENTS / Smt. Reeta M. Jethani, W/o. Shri Manohar Jefhani, aged about 36 years, resident of beside Hotel Kohinoor, Baaris- TaU, Amardeep Talkies Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS NS° co^ t^^^ys l^v'^r^ /1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department (Mantralaya), D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Munlcipal Corporation, Bhilai - Through: Municipal Commissioner, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.). 3. Smt. Madhubala Bedi, wife of Late Manjeet Pal Singh, resident of New Khursipaar, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.). / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2^6/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. i^u- STI^TqiT fN^an^r aiiitiOfN' XI-HC-22 _ . ^, /^^ 3^'^[PTRW, ®Tn*l'l6,(eldwy 3T(^7T<4acb , HWWI snNich •••-•••••••••••••••r^qj- 2gQ f^%""""""""" Sn^TS^fRTCHf^T petititaner 18/9fe000 otesed 06.09.2006 Shri Virendra Sharma, Shri Sumesh Bajaj; Govt. Heard on admission. By way of this Writ Constitution of India, the Government's order dated that the aforesaid order was Pradesh and the directions werq commercial and residential use Corporation, Bhilai admeasurini the Corporation until further mentioned that the prohibition is Learned counset for the| specified area, some land has respondent N0.3 has entered 1(1 17/8/2005, according towhich, favour of the petitioner and she| lease to the petitioner. He been imposed by the entered into between the enforced and the petitioner is impusned order (Annexure P-t submits that the order is a impediment on the rights of the the said area. He also submits] been given by the Detitioner to Colinsel for the petitioner. Advocate for the State. PeUtion orHers furtHer Govemntent petitibner harbh wrfepftT inirafif te^t-.CRFRTC ^iSI^ITSn^T filed under Article 226/227 of the has prayed for quashment of the filed as Annexure P-1. It appears by the erstwhile State of Madhya issued that the open lands pertaining to belonging to the possession of Municipal 38,000 sq. m. shall not be leased out by by the Government. It has been being made on administrative grounds. Ipetitioner submits that among the said encroached by respondent No.3 and an agreement with the petitioner on the is readv to surrender all her rights in I has no obiection, if ttie land is given on submits that since the prohibition has by the impugned order, agreement and respondent No.3 is not being but to a loss. About setting aside the I), tearned counsel for the petitioner order, which is creating unnecessary bteen itito barties.including the petitioner, residing in ^-.-.--...._, ...- .--—•-••-^------ that in this regard, a representation has (espondents No.1 and 2, but the same is XI-HC-22 sn^TqiT R-fi'* .3ii^?r shli'h (rf^cT <p)^y ^ 3^'^lPIRTq', ®T|I*I'I(»,Rldl^iy __.hJ.c-..vjMy7.?^_ HWWI sh*<|ch """""" """7"" ?n' 200 i^S""""""": Stl^T ^gRR ;Rf^T z^ nelcessarv also not decided by them and of the said representation filed as|, Writ prayed in the above petitioner. Firstly, for the reasonl in the impugned order dated administrath/e decision taken by complete ban regarding grant ofl but it onty imposes temporary imi^edii So far as the question o( private parties are concerned, binding on any third party inctudiha and no rights under the aareenlient State or against the Corporatilon enforcement in any manner,woul^t The last point is aboutth^ opinion of this Court, the repres^ntation and the directions regarding benefrt of a party, which is not be given. In the opinion of this C4urt, entertain this Writ Petition. This Writ 1 «t>i<<f<vi41-i WRrf iffs^S TfSrezrc ^i3rf^T3n^?T direcUons be issued for decision 1 Annexure P-K.- ihature cannot be granted in favour of the Ithat the action taken by the Government 1P/9/2000 is completely based upon the the government and it does not impose a |lease under the transfer of property taw, imitediment on certain internat grounds. entering into an agreement between 2 lcertainly that aareement would not be the State or the Municipal Corporation can be enforced either against the and the Writ Petition for such an not lie. th^ decision of the representation. In the is not covered under anv statute dectision of a general representation for the iupported bv statutorv provisions, cannot t, there appears to be no reason to it Petition is dismissed in limine. Sd/- SunUKumarSinha Judge ('flt^f^) A: ^