Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon v. Smt. Sangeeta Jain And ORS

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION NO. 1 of 2015

1. Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon ThroughIts Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Smt. Sangeeta Jain Aged About 43 Years W/o Shri Sunil Kumar R/o Opposite Kakkad Auto, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, Tah. And Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Urban Administration, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur C.G., [now Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.]

3. Secretary Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Town And Country Planning, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur C.G., [now Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G.]

4. Director Directorate Of Town And Country Planning, Raipur C.G.

5. Collector Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

6. Assistant/Deputy Director Town And Country Planning, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 :

Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate For Respondent No.2 :

Ms. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer HON'BLE SHRI NAVIN SINHA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.

Order On Board Per NAVIN SINHA, ACTING C.J.

19/03/2015 1.

The present petition is barred by 588 days of delay. There is no plausible explanation in the application for condonation of delay

except that the delay was bonafide and not intentional as steps were being taken to determine the market value of the land and directions from the State government were awaited. We do not consider the same as sufficient cause to condone delay.

2.

In any event the Learned Single Judge has left it open for the Petitioner to acquire the lands in question in accordance with law. Whether the power is to be exercised by the Corporation or with the financial assistance of the State government is an irrelevant issue. No ground has been made out for exercising the narrow and limited review jurisdiction.

3.

We therefore decline to condone delay and dismiss I.A.No.1 of 2015 seeking condonation of delay 4.

Consequently, review application also fails and is dismissed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE sunita