Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others v. Geetanjali Costructions (Colonizer Developer and Builder) 2 Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Nov 2009WA/329/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal as not maintainable. The court held that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 bars appeal against the interim interlocutory order staying the operation of the single judge's judgment.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the bar contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act.

State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others Vs Geetanjali… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2009)

(,0 R

529 2 o3

HIGH COURT^{OFCHHATTI$GARHATBILASPUR}

¶5

Writ Appeal (Pr)^{No.54G8of2009}

¶6

APPELLANTS: Respondents No.1^toS

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh ,through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya, DKS^{Bhawan,Raipur} 2. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 3. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh,^{DepartmentofUrban} Administration and Development, Mantralaya, DKS^{Bhawan,Raipur} 4. The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department^ofTown and Country^{Planning,Mantralaya,} DKS Bhawan,^Raipur 5. The Sub-Divisional omoer‘ Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Versus

¶9

RESPONDENTS: 1. Geetanjali Constructions (Colonizer
Developer and Builder}, A
Petitioners
Partnership Firm registered under
Indian Partnership Act, 1956,
through its Partner Sant Ram Sahu,
Slo Shri Mutan Ram Sahu, aged 53
years, Rlo Geetanjali House, Nehru
Nagar, Ameri. Road, Biiaspur (CG)
2. Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur
through Commissioner, Municipai
Corporation, Bilaspur
(Chhattisgarh)'
(RespondentNo.6)
3. Gram Panchayat, Mangla, through
‘
its Secretary, Distt. Bilaspur
. .
(Chhattisgarh) _
(Respondent No.7)
a
Present:- . I
Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with Shri Suryakant Mishra,
Panel Lawyer for the State/appellants.

¶10

RESPONDENTS: Petitioners

¶11

Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ.

¶12

JUDGMENTV (4.1^1-2009) .

¶13

This writ appeal is listed on default.

¶14

The appellants have preferred this writ appeal^‘under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (for ‘the

¶15

short Act’) against the interim order dated 7-8-2009 passed in "

¶16

WP(C) No.2725109 preferred by respondent No.1.

¶17

¶18

1. Shri Vinay Harit; Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not create an absolute bar to prefer an appeal to the Division Bench against the interlocutory order and the appeal can be preferred _ against such order regard being had to the nature, tenor, effect and impact of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶19

Reliance is placed on Full Bench'Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Coult in the matter of Arvind Kumar Jain & Ors. V. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. {AIR 2007 MADHYA PR-ADESH 276}.

¶20

. in the instant case, from perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that the same has been passed on the ground that the provisions^{ofChhattisgarhPanchayat} (Registration^{ofColonizer,terms} and conditions) Rules, '1 999 (for short ‘the Rules’) are not applicable to the present case. It has been also observed that minimum area in the . land in dispute is less than 5600 sq. meter, whereas the dennition^of

¶21

” Eiixl

¶22

¶23

colonizer under Section 2(b) of the Rules prescribes minimum plot area af 5000 sq. meter.

¶24

6V From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Singie Judge has arrived to the conciusion that area of respondent No.1 is iess than 5000 sq. meter whereas the whole area for which project^of respondent No.1 was sanctioned was much more than 5000^sq.meter.

¶25

l\ Learned Single Judge by the impugned order virtually recorded a finding which is conclusive in nature and,^{therefore,thebarcontained} in sub—section (1) of Section 2 of the Act would not come in way of filing writ appeal.

¶26

We have heard learned counsel for^the appellants. We^have perused the impugned order as also the memo of appeal.

¶27

9, From perusal of the orderunder challenge, it is clear that in’the impugned order after recording^{thesubmissionsoflearnedcounselfor} the petitioners the effect and operation of^theorder passed^bytheSDO has been stayed until further orders

¶28

(Revenue) (Anexure-Pli) considering the facts situation of the^case.

¶29

From perusal of the order of the SDO, which^was produced for our perusal^byShriHarit, it appears that SDO by its^{orderhasdeclaredthe} V colony constructed by^{therespondent/petitioneras‘illegal.} imposing penalty^{ofRs.23,000l-,transferofplotshavebeendeclared} null and' ~

¶30

void. The order of forfeiture of the right, title^{orinterestofthecolonizer} in the land under illegal colonization^hasbeen passed^underSection 61-G of the Panchayat Raj Evam^{GramSwarajAdhiniyam,1993and}

¶31

. the same has been vested in Gram Panchayat Mangla.

¶32

wemm^.2 zeswe

¶33

1‘1, Considering the nature^oftheorder passed^{bytheSDO,theoperation} and effect of which has been stayed^{bytheimpugnedorder,weareof} the opinion that the instant writ appeal^{isnotmaintainableinViewof}

¶34

the bar contained in proviso^{tosub-section} (1)^{ofSection-2oftheAet.}

¶35

12‘ in the result, the appeal is dismissed^{asnotmaintainabie.}

¶36

//W
Sal- :ii: Sdl-
.Dmrendra *R.N. Chandrakar =-
M‘s hm ,Ll.‘
.e Judge
”W”
Ban/e Judge
l

State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others v. Geetanjali Costructions (Colonizer Developer and Builder) 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others v. Geetanjali Costructions (Colonizer Developer and Builder) 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby T. Vargis Vs M.P. Housing Board and Ors.

Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/S Uniworth Ltd. Vs Comm.of Customs and Central Excise

Smt. Bindu Gurjar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Parsadi Ram Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh and 4 Others Vs Geetanjali Constructions (Colonizer Developer and Builder) and 2 Others