CFOII00110361 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l M.P.4446/1993 PETITIONERS 'ls'S;!l?ah-. •VSS^. :1. Satyanarayan Singh S/o Shri "Shivdevi Singh, aged about 80 years Businessman R/o Supela, Bhilai, Tah.& Distt. Durg (M.P.) 2. Vidya Prasad Singh S/o Shri Satya Narayan Singh R/o Supela, Bhilai Tah. & Distt. Durg (M.P.) RESPONDENTS ^11% SSSa VERSUS :1. Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Chief Executive Officer Municipal Corporation Bhilai Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) 3. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Through Managing Director, BhilaiSteel Plant, Bhilai nagar, Tah. & Distt. Durg (M.P.) "\' -/ (2) 4. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Town And Country Planning Department Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI MANADAMUS PROHIBITION ETC. AND FOR FURTHER APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS ^•ti ^ ^y c / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 4446 OF 1993 PETITIONERS Satyanarayan Singh SAnother RESPONDENTS Versus Municipal Corporation Bhilai & Others .•^ Post for pronouncement of orders on the ^° day of September, 2011 SdA 't- Safeh K. Agnihotri Judge 1'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WR!T_PETITION_NO. 4446 OF 1993 Satyanarayan Singh & Another Versus Municipal Corporation Bhilai & Others (Writ Petition underArticles 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Satyawan Agrawal, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2. (Delivered on this 2o day of September, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents No.1 & 2 to allot the entire plot area 50' x 43', as described in Annexure P-22 and settle the same in favour of petitioner No.1 by an appropriate writ. 2. Case of the petitioners, in brief, for adjudication of the dispute, is that the area in dispute was acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act, 1894") for the purpose of construction of Steel Plant i.e. Bhilai Steel Plant (for short "BSP"). On 4.4.1978, an agreement was executed between the BSP and the Special Area Development Authority (for short "SADA"). As per the agreement, it was decided by the respondents No.1 & 2 that all those persons who were in occupation of a piece of land or plot either as resident or businessman would be regularized and formal allotment orders would be issued in their favour. Accordingly, some allotment orders were issued. 3. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 along with his son Asihar Singh @ Osihar Singh (since deceased) was running .-.-^ 4?.- (;: business over the plot in question. The said shop was duly registered as per the provisions of the law. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 made a representation for regularization of the said plot before the respondent authorities on several occasions and even paid the requisite fee. Thereafter, by letter dated 31.12,1991, the petitioner No.1 was asked to file an affidavit declaring that he has no other piece of land or plot in his possession. Subsequently, by letter dated 16.01.1992 (Annexure - P/2) the petitioner No.1 was given allotment of 15' x 40' cut of 50' x 43' in his possession. On the basis of which, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.24,450/- vide book No.310 on 10.02.1992 (Annexure P-23). 4. Contention of the petitioners is that they came to know from reliable sources that the respondent authorities are going to allot the plot in question to the third party, in an illegal and arbitrary manner and against the decision ofthe State Government. Thus, this petition. 5. Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioner No.1 is eligible to be regularized against the plot in his possession. The petitioner No.1 has already constructed superstructure overthe plot in question, therefore, he is eligible for allotment of remaining part of the plot. 5. On the other hand, Shri Satyawan Agawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2, would submit that the registration of the plot could not be done in favour of the petitioners on account of their failure to fulfill the requisite formalities. The respondent authorities are still willing to allot plot 15' x 40' to the petitioners, subject to completion of the requisite formalities including the payment of dues towards rent and premium as per the norms prescribed by the respondent authorities, which is evident from para 5 ofthe return dated 3-12-1996. r---— —. %/ 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. _By order dated 15-12-1993 this Court passed an interim order to the effect that "until further orders, it is directed that the plot in possession of the petitioner, of which settlement with him is being claimed, shall not be allotted to any one else and the status quo in the matter of possession thereof shall be maintffined." 8. In view of categorical statement made by the respondents No.1 & 2, which reflected in para 5 of the return dated 3-12-1996, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to comply with all the requisite formalities, though they had already done in the past. 9. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2, reiterates the stand of the respondents No.1 & 2 and would submit that the respondents No.1 & 2 have no objection to execute the order dated 16-1-1992 (Annexure - P/22) on filing of necessary affidavits and complying with other necessary requirements by the petitioners. 10. In view of foregoing, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication, at this stage. Accordingly, the respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to comply with the statement made in para 5 of the return dated 3-12-1996, in respect of the order dated 16-1-1992 (Annexure - P/22). 11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Gowri Sd/- 'f Satish K. Agnihotri Judge