High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/893/2015disposed off

Gangadhar More v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

2015-09-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 893 of 2015 Gangadhar More S/o Shri Gyandev More, Aged About 51 Years R/o Jhoolkadam Road, Ward No. 16, Sakti, Tah. Sakti, P.S. Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) District: Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council- Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Asstt. Director, Town And County Planning, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Smt. Usha Sharma Wd/o Late Mahendra Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Sothi, P.S. & Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

6. Nagesh Sharma S/o Late Mahendra Sharma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sothi, P.S. & Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh)

7. Shrikant Sharma S/o Late Mahendra Sharma Aged About 24 Years R/o VillageSothi, P.S. & Tahsil Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Vinod Tekam, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Ratnesh Agrawal, counsel for respondents 5, 6 and 7. Order On Board 28/09/2015 The petitioner has raised a grievance that respondents 5 to 7 are developing colony by plotting and selling it to third party without obtaining sanction required under the law and the State authorities are guilty of inaction.

The return of respondent / State states that on 17/08/15, the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Sakti sent a memo to the Assistant Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Janjgir Champa that the complaint has been taken cognizance of and proceedings initiated.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to keep the matter pending. This petition is disposed off with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sakti to examine the case of the petitioner and take appropriate decision after giving due opportunity of hearing to respondents 5 to 7. It is expected that the Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the issue within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, if the petitioner or respondents 5, 6 and 7, as the case may be, are aggrieved with the decision, they may take recourse to the remedy as may be available to them under the law.

Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Deepti