6! EIGH CUURT OF CHHATFE'ISGARH AT B‘LLASPUR WRIT E’ETITION {C} Na. 7585 of 203? PETITIONERS :‘f. Bhiiai Automobiles I’rivate Limitat a compwy dniy incorporaied under the rekvani provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having itg registered offiw at GE. Road, Pawei‘ Housa Bhilai District Durg ihrough its Dii'ectgr, Raiegi'; Bhaumi, 30:1 0% Law Mukmn’i La! Bhu‘tani. 2. Rajesh Bhutani son of Lats Mukund Ia} Bhutani, aged about 4G wars ragwsm of GE. Road, E’ower House Road, Bhilai, Director, Bhilai z‘mtomobiles; Private LimitecE, Bhilai. VERSUS RESFONDEN‘IS : 1.. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Depamnent of Town & Coumxy Manning, Secretariat. D K S Bhawaxi Raipur 2. The Bhilai Municipa‘ Corporation a bociy oonstiiuted under the relevant provisions of CG. Munici‘gal Corporaiion act, 1956 through its Commi ssioner, Bhilai Municipal Corporation, Bhilai. PE’i‘ITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 1H]: CON S'l‘l'IUTION OF INDXA §§B: Htm’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri B.P.Shanna, Advocate with Shi'i Ajit Singh, Advocate for {he petitioners. Shri Arun Sao Government Advocate for the State Sliri H.B.Agr&;wal, Senior Advocate with Sim. Meera Jaiswai, Advocate for iiie respondent No. 2. ORBER ORAL} {Passed on 16 ciay of Juiy, 2009) Heard. By this petition, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature ofmandamus directiiig the respondent authorities to oerfomi their obiigation undertaken by them wider the deed of assignment Le. to execute the lease deed in favour ofthe petitioners and to restrain the respondem authorities, their agents servants and employees from imerfering with the possession of'the petitioners. Shri Singh, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that initiaiiy the iarid was aliotteti to Dewanchand Bhutani, the grand father of the petitioner No. 2, Rajesh Bhutani, on 22nd March, 1997 ('AI’’ioexure P/i) with a eonciition to make payment towards premium and annual lease rent oftiie land in question. Shri Agrawal, leamed Semior counsel apyaaring for me respondent No“ 2 submitg that aiier aiiotmem 0f the land, the petitiomrs have not mad¢ any paymant towards yremium or annual lease rem, either to the Hindusmn Steei Limited, or the Special Area Deveiopment Authority, (for short ‘SADPQ Bhilai or thereafier t0 the present respondent No. 3, and as such, the petitioner is not entiiled to any relief as, sought for by the peotioners. The petitioners have mt perfoxmeci iheir own obligaiion by paying tho premium 371d the annual lease ram of the lam. 0n perusai ofthe records: it is foumi that the $ADA has issued notices to the petitioners to pay premium, lease annual rem, and the fee for regularisation to the time of Rs. 313E64,534/- by letter dated 01.08.1988 (Amexure P/3). No payment was made by ihe petnionerg pursuant i0 me demand rai$ed by the SADA. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 Corporation stepped into the shoes of SADA Though, no demand was raised to make payment of the premium,‘ annual leaee rent or other admissible dues hut admitteély, premium, annual lease rem and other dues have not been made till date and as suchl no writ may be issued directing the respondent Corporation to execute the lease deed for want of performance ofthe obligations on the part ofthe petitioners. Shri Agrawal futther submits that it‘the petitioners are ready and Wiiling to make payment of the all the requieite dues Viz“ premium, annual lease rent, regularisation charges and other admissible Charges, the respondent—Corporation will execute necessary dooumente. S‘hri Singhg learned counsel apnearing for the netitioners submits that in View of the above submission, the petitioners are ready and Willing to make all the necessary oayments which are due, and payanle to the respondent-Coworation for executing the lease deed. in View of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the pai‘tiee. nothing survives for adjudication. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. No order aeto costs. Amil. t Sd/— Satisil K. Agihtri Judge / « no