s-ta^.^% Ib.S1 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. ^7) No. '7'$fi)^0f2010, PETITIONER APPLICANT :: /^Virendra Agrawal, S/o. late Shri Ram Narayan Agrawal, aged about 65 years, R/o. Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil 85 District Bilaspur (C.G.), Versus RESPONDENTS ,:1) State of Chhattisgarh through Non-applicants Additional Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) &° \/^^?"r> -^ :2) Nazul Officer, Bilaspur, District Q<^>(%^^ ' ; ' Bilaspur (C.G.) /•^^s^ /•"^\ ,,:3) Additional Collector, Bilaspur, ^--~ <^ District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1!;" 1StBKR®BroW::;:'";::l !s?p ...^" mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'bleShriPrashantKumarMjshra Writ Petition fO No. 7597/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Virendra Agrawal Versus State of Chhattisgarh and otiiers ApDearance: Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State. rf» WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22&227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (22.12.2010) The only relief claimed in tiie writ petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner's application for grant of No Objection Certificate (in short NOC) by Ifae Nazul Authorities as one for educational purpose and consider the same within stipulated time. (2) Leamed Senior Advocate appesring for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner holds a lease for residential purpose, however the land use of the lands covered under sheet No.37 of Bilaspur Nazul in Juna Bilaspur is for educational purpose, therefore his application was rejected. He would submit that the owner ofthe adjoining plot, holding a similar lease has been granted NOC for construction of a building for education purpose. He would submit i1hat case ofthe petitioner and that ofadjoining land owner Mr. Sushil -2 Kumar Saluja S/o Late Chand Lal Saluja who has been granted NOC by the same authority i.e. respondents No.2 and 3, is identical, therefore petitioner is entitled for similar treatment under Article 14 ofthe Constitution oflndia. (3) In view ofthe above, it is directed that ifthe petitioner submits fresh application for grant ofNOC for construetion ofa building for educational purpose within a period of 15 days from today, fhe respondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law and keq}ing in view the NOC granted to the adjoining land ownernamely Sushil Kumar Saluja S/o Chand Lal Saluja. (4) The auAorities are also directed to dispose ofthe application as early as possible and preferably within a period of two months after submission ofthe application. It is also observed that earlier rejection of his application for grant of NOC shall not be an impediment in view ofthe permission granted to Ifae adjoining land owner. (5) With this directioa, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. ^' r^^ p,ashants^arMishra ^.Judge pjpra— t="Bs-s-^st.,4.i.^iSM^fiiws^aesii^ [aiB'"!HnaBiBBi5«E—nB ^^S^Slsss^s^s^iss^^^^Ss^sassisSssiSaimsss&^Si^wssissSiaii.sM:-'. ••••