Disposed

Vikrant Ban v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Apr 2022WPC/833/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit an online application for building permission. The Commissioner was directed to decide it within sixty days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit fresh online application; direction to respondents to consider and decide within sixty days.

Vikrant Ban Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 833 of 2021

¶5

Vikrant Ban S/o Late D. B. Goshwami Aged About 48 Years R/o New Kurshipur, Bhilai, District Durg (CG)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Town & Country Planning Bhavan, Secretary, Department, Mahanadi Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (CG)

¶9

Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) ---- Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶11

SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶12

18/4/2022

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 12.1.1996 petitioner was granted lease of Plot No.15, Block-15, Block-B, South Gangotri, Bhilai, District Durg (CG) for commercial purpose for a period of thirty years. After coming into possession of leasehold land, on 11.1.2002 petitioner submitted an application seeking permission to raise permanent construction over leasehold land. Permission was granted vide order dated 11.1.2002 (Annexure P-2), but petitioner could not able to raise construction on leasehold land on account of encroachments made by some other persons on it. Petitioner took initiatives for removal of encroachment as a result Competent Authority got petitioner's land vacated from encroachers in the year 2015. Thereafter on 25.11.2019 petitioner again submitted application for grant of building

¶14

¶15

permission which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 5.8.2020 (Annexure P-3). He submits that only reason assigned by respondent No.2 for rejecting petitioner's application for grant of building permission is that pendency of WPC No.1453/2015 (Dharmdev Singh vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai) involving some property, coupled with opinion of counsel of Corporation, it is not possible to grant building permission. It is contended that pendency of aforementioned writ petition should not be an impediment in granting building permission to petitioner as relief sought in that petition is only with respect to grant of compensation on account of removal of construction of petitioner therein. In these circumstances, he submits that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to consider and decide application of petitioner dated 25.11.2019 and to grant building permission.

¶16

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute factual submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner. He admits that in WPC No.1453/2015 relief sought by petitioner therein is only for grant of compensation. He further submits that now-adays application for grant of building permission is not accepted manually, it is to be submitted online. If petitioner would submit online application for grant of building permission, the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law. On instructions he submits that respondent No.2 vide letter dated 27.9.2021 intimated the petitioner that if he is interested in raising construction over leasehold land, then submit online application for grant of building permission, but petitioner has

¶17

¶18

not submitted any such application till date.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-State submits that respondent No.1. is a formal party and main grievance of petitioner is against respondent No.2.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Considering limited grievance as projected by petitioner that his application for grant of building permission is rejected by respondent No. 2 on 5.8.2020 on account of pendency of WPC No.1453/2015; submission of learned counsel for petitioner that in aforementioned writ petition, petitioner therein has only claimed compensation, which is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 also, and further considering submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 vide letter dated 27.9.2021 has already intimated petitioner to submit online application for grant of building permission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to petitioner to submit fresh application online for grant of building permission before respondent No.2. If such an application is submitted online by petitioner, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same within a period of sixty days from the date of its receipt, on its own merit in accordance with law, without prejudice with the reasons assigned in the order/letter dated 5.8.2020 (Annexure P-3).

¶22

Certified copy as per rules.

¶23

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶24

roshan/-

Vikrant Ban v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikrant Ban v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Jairam Ayyar Vs Pram Kumar Buxy

Bisahu Lal Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Devichand Rathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Feku Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girdhar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh