Disposed

Ku. Mehmooda Sultana v. Danteswari Mai Templ Estate and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2011WPC/1446/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common order disposing of two writ petitions, the Billaspur High Court directed the competent authority to decide the petitioners applications for lease renewal within four months without adjudicating the merits of their claims or the pending violation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents No.1 & 2 to decide the petitioners applications for renewal of lease within four months.

Ku. Mehmooda Sultana Vs Danteswari Mai Templ Estate… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

;

¶2

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

W.P.(Ct N0. \L[i{G / 2009

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

Ku. Mehmooda Sultana, daughter of Shri S.A. Shah, aged about 28 owner of Kh.No.362 area years, 366 sq.ft., resident of Dantewada (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

€

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1. ^Danteswari Mai Temple Estate, through its President, South Bastar, Dantewada (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

RESPONDENTS 1)
X^>"C
<s-^ 2)'
^^^
^^'
^^^'
3)

¶10

2)' The Collector-cum-Ex-Officio Chairman, Danteswari Mai Temple Estate, South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

Shri Ankit.Anand, Suh-Divisional Officer, South Bastar, Dantewada

¶12

(Chhattisgarh)

¶13

^^y

¶14

Tehsildar, South Bastar, Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) ^' 5) Superintendent of Police, South Bastar, Dantewada (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA

¶16

1^-.

¶17

))}

¶18

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶19

Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

¶20

W.P.fCl N0.1446/2009

¶21

Petitioner Ku. Mehmooda Sultana

¶22

Versus Respondents Danteswari Mai Temple Estate and Others

¶23

W.P.(C) N0.1447/2009

¶24

Petitioner Smt. S. B. Shah

¶25

¶26

Versus Resoondents Danteswari Mai Temple Estate and Others

¶27

(Wrtt Petition underArtKle 226 ofthe Constitoitron of India)

¶28

Present:^-

¶29

Shri P. R. Patankar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B. D. Guru, counsel for respondents No.1 & 3. Shri Satish Gupta, G.A. for the State/respondents No.2,4 & 5.

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(Passedon 04-01-2011)

¶32

The two writ petitions (W.P.(C)No.1446 and 1447 of 2009) are bejng disposed off by this common orderas common question based on similar facts are involved and grievance arises for consideration at the instance of the petitioners who are lessee of the trust.

¶33

The petitioners in aforestated two writ petitions were granted lease of plots under an agreement executed in their favour. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No.1446 of 2009 was granted lease vjde agreement dated 28-11-2000 whereas petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1447 of 2009 was granted lease vide agreement dated 26-05-1995. In both the agreements, period of lease was prescribed as three years and the agreement contained a renewal clause also.

-2.-

,1"^-

The petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions, even after the expiry of the initial period of lease under the agreement claimed to have been paying the lease rent. According to the petitioners, the petjtioners have already moved the competent authority namely the respondents No.1 & 2 for renewal of lease earlier granted in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforestated two petitions, respondent authoritjes have drawn certain proceedings, however, till date the matter has not been finally decided with regard to their applications for renewal oftheir respective lease.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents No.2, 4 & 5/Stete as well as learned counsel for the respondents No.1 & 3/Trust Committee submjtted that in respect of the petitioners in both the aforestated writ petitions. proceedings were initiated on the allegation of violation of terms and conditions of lease. Learned counseS for the respondents however fairly submitted thatthe petitioners' applications are still pending and no final decision has been taken on those renewal applications. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though other issues have also been raised with regard to demolition etc., in the state of affairs exjsting, the petitioner^{inboththeaforestatedwrit} petitions^{wouldbesatisfiediftheCourt} directs the respondent authorities to consider and take appropriate decision on their appjications for renewal of tease. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given liberty to raise other issuesat the appropriate stage.

¶39

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions for decision oftheir application for renewal of lease, without commenting on merite and demerite of the petitioner's claim for renewal of lease, respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to take decision on petitioners application in both the writ petitions in the matter of renewal of lease. Respondents No.1 & 2 shall take

/)3

M.^

-3 -

decision on the application of the petitionere' application for renewal of lease expeditiously preferably within a periqd of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has neither decided the issue raised by the petitioners in both the writ petitions nor expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It would be open for the respondent authorities to take decision in accordance with law. Needless to emphasize, if grievance of the petitjoners still survives for consideration, he would be at liberty to take recourse to remedy as may be available under the law.

¶44

With the aforesaid direction, the aforestated writ petitions ((W.P.(C)

¶45

No.1446 and 1447 of 2009) stand finally disposed off.

¶46

Sd/Stirivastava Man.ndr.M^

Ku. Mehmooda Sultana v. Danteswari Mai Templ Estate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Mehmooda Sultana v. Danteswari Mai Templ Estate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju @ Rajesh Manikpuri Vs State

Smt. Alka Mishra and Ors. Vs M/S Vimal Transport and Ors.

S.D.Sahu Vs Naranyan Singh and Others

Chhatturam Vs G.R.Jangde and Ors.

Smt. Krishna Devi Sharma and Anr. Vs Shri Arun Dev Goutam and Ors.

Ku. Suniti Kaiwart Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another