Allowed

Rajeev Grih Nir.Sah.Sam.Mary.Raipur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC21 Nov 2017WPC/2956/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order forfeiting cooperative society land, directing remittal to the Municipal Corporation to consider a pending development application afresh after providing a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order forfeiting the land was set aside and the matter remitted to the Municipal Corporation to consider the petitioner's application afresh after giving a proper opportunity of hearing.

Rajeev Grih Nir.Sah.Sam.Mary.Raipur Vs State of… — Company and Corporate | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Petition (C) No.2956 of 2008

¶4

Rajeev Grih Nirman Sahakari Samati Maryadit, Katora Talab, Raipur, a Society registered under the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, through its President Shri Jawahar Lal Salamatani.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Cooperative Societies, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG).

¶8

Municipal Corporation, Raipur, through its Commissioner.

¶9

Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (CG).

¶10

--- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Resp.No.1: Mr. Arun Sao, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents No.2&3: Mr.H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board

¶12

21/11/2017

¶13

(1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that impugned order dated 30.05.2008 has been passed by respondent No.3- Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur by which respondent No.3 had forfeited 17000 sq.ft land of the petitioner's society on the ground that the internal development of the colony was not initiated and completed, whereas the internal development work has already been completed by the petitioner society for which the petitioner has already made application to the respondent authorities on 17.07.1995, but the said application is pending consideration till now; and without hearing and without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authorities, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶14

(2) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2&3 would submit that the petitioner's application will be considered

¶15

and decided by the respondent authorities, expeditiously.

¶16

(3) It appears from the record that the petitioner's application has not been considered and decided by the respondent authorities till now and no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to satisfy the respondent authorities that internal development work has already been completed, therefore, on the basis of above analysis and in the interest of justice, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and matter is remitted back to the Municipal Corporation, Raipur to consider and decide the petitioner's above-stated application afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file additional documents, if any in support of his case.

¶17

(4 ) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶20

L/-

Rajeev Grih Nir.Sah.Sam.Mary.Raipur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Grih Nir.Sah.Sam.Mary.Raipur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurag Chandra Sao Vs Pt. Ravishankar University and Another

Raipur Development Authority Vs Smt.Gajra Bai and Ors.

Raipur Development Authority Vs Kachara Bai and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs M/S Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd.

Ram Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Hari Charitable and Religious Trust Vs the State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.