M 2w7/ ® % SINGLE 3ENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl N0.é123 OF 201 g/S Kanha Steel, Plot No. 45/5, 6, 7, 8 Industrial Area, village Bhanpuri, ‘ Raipur (Chhattisgarh), .I / 2. Ramjit Singh, S/o Late Shri Ghughuli Singh, Aged about 38 years, Partner of M/s Kanha Steel, R/o A-133, Age Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). PETITIONERS 1 . 3. Smt. Usha Devi Singh, W/o Ramjit Singh, aged about 35 years, Partner of M/ s Kanha Steel, R/o A-133, Agye Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENT / Chhattisgarh State Industria Development Corporation Limited, Through Managing Director, Jeevan Bima Complex, Pandri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) W CONSTITUTION OF INDIA E 1 l (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Shri Sourabh Sharma. Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER (Passed on this 19‘5 day of October, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 08‘“ September, 2011 & 12‘“ August, 2011 (Annexure P—1) and further a direction to decide the application dated 03’“ September, 2011 (Annexure P—5) for allotment of the land to the petitioner. 2. The main issue involved in this petition is that the petitioner after making an I application under Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh industries (Allotment of Shed/ Plots and Land) Rules, 1974 on 03‘“ September, 2011 (Annexure P-5) h s occupied the adjacent area without there being any proper allotm t. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed intimating the petitioner tha he had already been informed earlier by letter dated 12‘“ August, 2011 as well as 29m August, 2011, not to encroach upon illegally in the adjacent land. Ultimately, on 08‘“ September, 2011, the petitioner was directed to remove the illegal occupation within a period 10 days, failing which appropriate steps may be taken under clause 26 of the agreement, for cancellation of the lease deed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that without deciding the application dated 03'“ September, 2011, the impugned order was passed which is bad and vitiated. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be rejected on a simple ground that after making application for allotment of the adjacent land, the petitioner did not become competent and authorized to encroach upon the land, which was not allotted to the petitioner. The said application is in the process of consideration. The petitioner had already been informed by letter dated 12th August, 2011 and 29‘“ August, 201 1, despite that, the petitioner continued on the illegal occupation. 4. In view of the afore—stated conduct of the petitioner that without there being a proper allotment, the petitioner had already encroached upon the land, which is not justified from any point of view, the impugned order is just, proper and does not warrant interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In view of foregoing, there is no merit in this case and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SATISH K. ANGNEIORI Judge v. Sd/— ashok / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON (C) NO. 6223 OF 2011 M3 PETITIONERS Mls. Kanha Steel & Others Versus RESPONDENT Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited.