•9- .'^? 3 .O'L/ IN THE HON'BLE HIGiH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION f Cl No.%3^o, 2008 •^- t%-1 ^ A^ PETITIONER: /A.K.Das,S/oK.P. Das, j, ^.« A9ed at)out 40 years, ^%<'?S^'1" R/a27/13,Nehru Nagar(East), ^^^^5^'^..^ Btiilai, District- Durg, C.G. .-":^if^t'%--""'""' ' -""•""'•"'""" •"•3' ~'~" ; ^ !»*' -2'^.-- • VERSUS RESPONDENTS: /l. Municipal Corporatibn Bhilai, District Durg, C.G. through its Commissioner ^ ,^ jQOr / 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary,I, Department of Local Self ^^^~" Government, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, C.G. 3. The Director, Department of Local Self Government, Raipur, C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2216 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^.. •y HIGHeoURTOI=;»SI-fMN~1i"IS©»RHA'l'iBll-ASF'UR WRlTPETlTIONi(CyN©.337Ci6fl20D8 Petitioner Respondent Versus A.K.Das MunicipalCorpQrationBhilai, Distrjct Durg &;<3thers WRITPETITIONUN[^RACTI©L@;2^.QFTHEe©NSTITOTIG'NGFIN^ (SB;HQn'bl&Mr.6atishK.^gnihotri,J.) PreSent:- Shri G. J. K. RaowithShri.Jitendra Gupta,AdvGGate^forthe .petitioner... 1: . :'';; , :' ' ' ,:: ; 1 .:•:: ': ^: . Stiri PankanjAgrawal,^voeateferth&res^ Shri ShashahkThakyr, Panel LawyerforlheState. •%. 'u 111< iJJLii. 1. 2. ^.. ORDERfORAU (Passedon 13th dayofJuly, 2010) The petitipner seeks a direetion to the respondent No.1 t6 graht permissipri fcirepnstruction onthe allotted landsiti.iateclat Supela, Bhilai,.'DistrictDi.|rg. y The faets in hutsBell as pf^ec^d by thepetitjon^^ theappliGationdated 10-10-1984 (Annexure P-1), tReCT Executive Officer, the therT SpeQial Area Development Authoi-ity (fbr short "SADA") granted allotment of ]the land acfmeasyring^ 30x30 sq.ft.videletterdated 15-1-1985 (Annexure P-2) stating-inaf theconstmi^iQnontheplotcaribemadeoHlyafterRer^^^ the Authbrily. Suhsequently, the SADA w^ Myhieipal Corporation 6f Bhilai came into existence [n plaee Bfj SADA. It isfurther sybrnitted that desRite repeateci letters writteri|E|iSM|ggj M 389 ^SsS y3S i9^M '^SM •i^i^ «a fhe respondenf Corporation on' '15-3-1985 (AnnexyreP-3)^cir(a|i|0 '•^"ysfM 26-9-1995 (Annexure P-4), no permiSsion 1s gr^nted. 0n^@ qti|g ^&;ffllMS^B und:erprovisions':ofl:Right'te.lnf6rniatien,':Ay,:2065^^ ^^s^^^-^^^^ was infoiTnedthat'tha'Rro|wsalto'allot'the:plGttt3S:b:66rT'ca||gi||gg|^ ;Sa'.f.^S-Si^VSSSvSW-* '^'^."^^i^^^^ ?;;•^^^•i^^lj^^^ SriNBSalHBSISI ;sK%8BSBBNEB ^i^Sgi&!a;is^ ./ _^ Cs' ihthemeeting'oftbethenSAD^on 25-2-1992 (Ahne>Mr^l?-^ was resolved t6 rancel allotftient o^ Siindrika Shukla, the petition®FandSapna Roy Chouciliary. Ttius, this petition for a direction to tK^ permission for construGtion oh the allotted land. Learned counsel appearing ^ petitibnerwas duly allottedla^p|o(?as7is^CT^ 15-1-1985 (Arifiexure P-2) ImEJfheieafter^w^ reason, th^ sams has been sanee^^^ 25^1992. SubsequeiMly.lSundrikaShuklaahyRo^fflaryDr hSve been allQttea plbtsas is evideritvfromth^^ Sundrika Shukla andttTerespondent eorporatioh^theltHen SADA ,(Annexure:IP-7). ::, • ;: . •: ^' :'.;:' :-.;'.. - :: . ; . ,-1 : . ^ '.•..' ' ",:: . Onthe6therlTand,ShriAgraw&l,|earneclcounselappganngforth® respondent No.1 subniits fhat there wras^ no proper ami^^^^ fi allQtment in favour of the petitiorijer. Tf\e letter was a simply provisiohal allotment in the nature of proposal^^^^^^^w becoffie?^eflsQiye^nly SftSr exeeufipn^^^^^ request<3ftRe$a[ti^;wa^v§F? ay&by^^ no agFe6ment^f^^>reetfNel%fvve^theiparties.Accordi^n^^ •then.;SADA.:after,seven:-ye9rs':d^6idea'.t(:)^canGel-:the^^ allotmenf made in^vourofthe'petifiQner.WitBrega :rnade|::,to ottters,.:may;,:be|they';^ve^taken^s^ ^^s SsSISI ^l^l^.l •'•s^s^^ ^:5s^ ^sS;^'!^ :ssKys9 making^ reqyeStto^reeonsid^rKisc^ef6r§llot]merit6fplofe^^^^- 'l'-' '• ' '• '. '••''•• •' '"• '.'::". . • ' •.•..•.''••'•• "..'"...'"'• •:. '.'••• •'.' "• . •: : ;•• ;Learned;.counsel(.further:su6rriits''that.jnl?th:e^imtentj::p 'petitipner'h:as;..:not'-asked;^r::.ex6cutiOH'.'of';t^-.|:eas&.:ag'rgej^ between the! parties.for. allofrn^^of^he^ .•.^:::i~S%:fii{Big^N ^m&SSSSiSSSS proper allotment of plol, tlie fietitiorier is seeKihg^a^diltgtii?!!^^ ••'•;J;~^:J-;';'^IKBS^ i^'^',?^:^^^^ :iy'WN::EBBSaB l':;';";:^J'%SSHiKBII Bl: ^.. 7. Ashok ^j^a^B»|;|^l^-;^..^^.i.,:V:;,f.^..? ;';^?ll:l?::':,':::^ grant permission to construct a Hpuse thereupon, which has still notbeen allOttedtothepetitio'ner. On hearing learned counsel appearing forfhe parties, perusal of the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that Annexure P-2 was simply a proposal statihg the amount, lease fee, security deposit and further a claiise added thatafterallotmgnt, a permissiori has to be obtained by the petitioner from the aufhority forconstruction ofthe house. Thie petitiomer hasfajled t6 showany documents that he has ever attempted to get the plot allotted permanentlyafterexecutionofthBproperleasedeed.ltiseviclent from the letter of the petitioner itself (Annexure P-4), whierein the petitioner subsequehtly, after cahcellation of the provisional allotmentwrote alettertotheauthoritiesforallotmentofthelandin accordance with law that no plot was allotted to the petitioner ori execution of lease deed. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was quite aware that the plot was never allotted to thie petitioner after execution of any agreement. Reliance of the agreement subsequently between Suhdrika Shukla Snd SADA on 13/3/1996 (Annexure P-7) is of no assistance to tfie petitioner as the petitioner has not sought for any reliefseeking a'directioh oh the basjs that he has attempted to get the lease executed in favourof the petitioner. Thus, no relief as sought for, fbr grant ofipermissien^ to construct a house on the plel which was not alldtted to the petitioner, can be granted; The petition is devoid of merits and accordingly is dismissed. SdA ' ; Satish K. AgniUotri { Judge ^i vl^l^^^^^^ i^S^il VsSS •^ss^&^s^^s^mM