Manuhar Sales Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 2269 of 2020 Manuhar Sales Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Robin Jiwnani, S/o Harish Kumar Jiwnani, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Chandela Vihar Colony, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Joint Director, Town And Country Planning, Regional Office, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

5. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. B. D. Guru, Advocate For State/R-1 to 3 & 5 :

Mr. S. Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent 4 :

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 06.10.2020

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner at one point of time had decided to develop a colony on the land situated in Khasra No. 647 measuring 1.35 acres at village Tifra, PH No.

23/40, Tahsil & District Bilaspur. In the said land, he had reserved a portion of land for development against EWS. The Municipal Corporation at that point of time had also paid compensation in lieu of land reserved for EWS to the petitioner. The land also stood mutated in the name of the petitioner in the course of time. However, down the line, the petitioner has now dropped the idea of developing the said colony and has cancelled the project. Meanwhile, the petitioner has also refunded the money that he had received from the Municipal Corporation against the land reserved for EWS seeking for releasing the said property to the petitioner back since the petitioner does not further intend to develop the said property as a colony. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent no.4, for almost 4 years now and prays that the respondent no.4 may be directed to take a decision on the same at the earliest.

2. Considering the nature of dispute that the petitioner has raised, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the respondent no.4 to take a decision on the application of the petitioner seeking release of the land reserved under EWS, garden and also for parking in the aforementioned property as the petitioner has dropped the idea of developing the colony. Let the concerned authority take a decision at the earliest preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai