NfcS5'^S^ Tf. LNTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. ^4-{ /2006 PETITIONER L)<^ .t" ^1/"' ^^.,^p-> ^' ^""x 3^^L--""- 9to--' ^ ff Gautam Bhuddha Agrawal, S/o - Shri Ramkrishna Agrawal, Aged about - 54 years, R/o - ViUage - Kumhari, Tehsil & District - Durg, (C.G.). ;A^' ^'.y Vs. RESPONDENTS /l. ^T-D^or£ ;^!«^. 9-^^G'.^pk8^ ^^IOR'* /3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Urban & Rural Development, Maatralya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.). The Director General, Town & Country Planning, R.D.A. BuUding, Near Shahstri Chowk, Raipur, (C.G.). The Deputy Director, Town & Country PIanning, Regional Office, Durg, (C.G.) The ChiefMuxucipal Officer, Municipal CoiincU, Kumhari, District - Durg, (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT(S) OR ORDERfS) OR DIRECTIONfSl \\i / IB' The petitioners named above most respectfLilly beg to submit as under: A^R XI-HC-22 an^T^r R-fi+sn^T sfiradfer SBIiqi 3^ •<ii<<ici<i, eiTn^'Ko, fieiwy 3ii^i ^a<ti WfvfffKW """"""""""[ W^ 200 R<)«A"""""""""" 3f1^?T 5RITW :Hft<T Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsej Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, No.1 to 3. ShriYashwant Singh Heard. By order/letter dated 3-1! pursuant to it the order/letter dat^ to change the purpose of use 0.304 hectare (for brevity "the ia|n aggrieved, this petition under Arti| Petitioner claiming himse|f viliage Kumhari, in order to map to Municipal Council, Land Use Certificate in respect o|f respondent No.3 had sun/eyed Bhilai City was pubiished Development Plan and under resen/ed for piantetion, but after any steps to acquire the iand foj for issuance of Land Use Certilfi Country Planning, but his prayer Respondents No.1 to 3 h^ emphasis has been piaced on ^s Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 ^i provision for modification of deji for the petitioner. (povt. Advocate for the State/respondents regar<|lng tttet 'tiwli'i'fl-f ii*<ciT^'te^<Ri<<ii<. ^sri^iran^T construct Kumfeihari ThaHur, counsel for resoondent No.4. 10-2005 issued by respondent No.2 and t^d 11-11-20£»issued by respondent No.3, <|>f land bearing khasra No.1412C area of ia|nd in dispute") has been refused. Feeling tibte 226/227 of the Constitution of india. : mse|f owner of the land in disoute ^tuated at a motei over it applied for sanction of Kumlihari, who asked the petitioner to submit his land. tn the year 1986, the ofRciais of Ithe land and on 19-7-1891 Ma^er Plan of the use of land called as Bhiiai Dure ptan the land in dispute has been kspt |apse ot a iong period the State did not take that purpose, therefore, p^itioner applied Kcate in his favour before the Town and has been refused. i^ve opposed the petition and in their return ^ection 23-A of the M.P./C.G. Nagar Tatha for brevity 'lhe Adhiniyam, 1973") wherein 1/etopment plan has been prescribed and XI-HC-22 3^ •<ii<4in<<, 8n(l^'i<p, ficiitiy 3ll^iyM?|th t *<l*4rtl sbt|lt(> ••"-•""•••—••••T g^ 200 sn^rw R-f W^?T stiliti yfsn SII^T ewKii wfer v pleaded that petitioner was requir^i Stete Government, who aione Respondent No.4 did not fiie anvl preiiminary objections. Admittedly there is no dispul also not disputed that the land hectare of land sttuated at vitlage under the Master Plan of Bhiiai Development PSan. Admittedly, accordance with Section 23-A of Govemment and in absenc®of to construct a motel can be grantecj th®lanci otherwise fhan bv olantatioh Hon'b!e Apex Court in the vs. State of Bflaharashtra and considered such issues and held r^d to submit Ns application before the |is competent to modity the ptans. [detaiied return, but only raised certam (e regarding ownership of the land. It is b^aring khasra No.1412^2 area of 0.304 Kjjmhari, has been reserved for plantation Cjty known and pubtished as Bhilai Durg petitioner did not file appiication in |the Adhiniyam, 1873 before the State mo^lification of the plan neither permission by Municipality nor petitioner can utitize 'Whether Goverhment dsvetopment p!an| from using ttiat| person of his use prohibition for "The Govemment from uslng thsir appreciate tne area for the ben °hi<it<']<0-t HmaT^ rs'-!'! <Rit*i< ^•sri^iran^T mbtter of Raju S. others (2006 indiaw and others SC 352) has can prepare a |and deprivs ownsr of land land?; whether without acquiring iand c^n Government deprive a |of land? - Heid, ttsere is no pt^paring development ptan comprissng of prlv^te !ar>d but that pian cannot be impiemented ustiess private iand is acquired by Government fQr|deveiopment purpose." n the aforesaid case, the t-ioh'ble Apex Court further observsd that : ]cannot deprive the persons t5rivate propsrty. Ws quite int^rest of the residents of ttat i^fft of the_ecology, certatl XI-HC-22 3^''<<i<ii<i<<, s>T(1ti'i<o, lqcii«y 3ll^'4^|th „ tlllril s*)*11t»> ••••••••••••••••••••r g^ 200 an^iT^r R-fi<<i3T1^T Sb^tcft yf^fl f' areas shouid be ^armarked fbr garden and park so as to provi<j!e fresh air to the residents (i order to provide sueh •^tdents of the area pmate U in order to effeciuate iheir but s|vithout acquiring the private cannot dsprive the owner of the land from usfng that iand for residentiai of that iocaiity. amenities to the re iand can be acquire public purpose iand the Govsrnmei purpose. It is as ciear as crvstai th; 3overnment cannot deprive a pers<|>n/owner and. Islw facts Here in the instant case the to the private party and Master Plarf lapse of a long period, the private| Government in accordance with jnclined to use it, he is denied of his Having considered all the directed that petitioner shall file an Mthin a period of 15 days, in a( ^dhiniyam, 1973 and thereafter th^ ^ame in accordance with faw, within of receiot of the same and in case 1 petitioner may apply for necessary accordance with Municipality iaw, ru| fiis appiicationand pass suitable modify the pian, Siate may proceed| |and for the purposes enshrined in from the date of order passed under seme °bl'>l[i-1'i|1-< *<IH!rt)"ft'te^t'<Rl«K ^Tsri^Tan^T t without acquiring the private iand, of the iand of his use of the is the situation though land belong has been published in 1991 yet after property has not been taken by the and now when a private party is pghts in the garb of that Master Plan. - and circumstances of the case, it is aj)piication before the State Governnrent llscordance witti Sectipn 23-A of the State Government shaii decide the |a period of three months from the date htodification of use of iand is ailowed, I permission before the Municipality in |es and regutations, who may consider >. in case ie State do not wlsh to in accordance with !aw to acquire the |:he ptan within a period of six months ^ection 23-A of the Adhiniyam, 1973^ ortiers. ^3i^S XI-HC-22 3^;;ipn?pr, 8iTl1«'i<?,R?iitiy sn^ II*ICTI shll'h '^ '^s\-^^ R<i.A •TO[ 200 311^1 ^iT feNiSII^T stilitiflfeT Stllltl Gowri 3TI^!?T BWKRWfer ^- observatlons the aforesaid disposed of. However, if exigenc^ jurisdiriion of this Court as enshrine]d India. Certified copy as per rules. qil<lfl1'lfll *<11CTTfffe^t'<Rlt<l< ^sri^Tsn^T and directions, the petition stands arises, the petitioner may invoke the under Article 226 of the Constitution of Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge ^A' (Ift^^A)