Disposed

Vikas Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Nov 2023WPPIL/17/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a PIL for takeover and development of VIP Estate Colony due to lack of amenities despite partial development and tax collection. Court noted colonizer's compliance obligations but emphasized need for fresh applications before the municipal authority. Writ petition was disposed of with directions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vikas Goyal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPPIL No. 17 of 2020

¶5

Vikas Goyal S/o Late Shri Ram Avtar Agrawal Aged About 43 Years Resident of Vip Estate Colony, Vidhan Sabha Road, Police Station Khamardih, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Director Town And Country Planning, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Joint Director Town And Country Planning, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Municipal Corporation Raipur Through The Commissioner, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Pramila Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Through The President, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

Raipur Development Authority, Through The Chief Executive Officer, Bhaktmata Karma Commercial Complex, 1st Floor, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

For Petitioner	: Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 5	: Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 6	: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge

¶18

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶21

02.11.2023

¶22

Heard Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/State, Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4, Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5 and Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.6.

¶23

The present public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶24

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Municipal Corporation to immediately take over the development work of VIP Estate Colony & all other identically placed colonies, by taking all required action and provide basic amenities there, in the interest of justice.

¶25

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to take necessary action against the responsible government authorities, Municipalities, societies, Builders, Cooperative Societies and Government Officers / Office Bearers of Builders / Societies / Municipalities / Cooperative societies for the above fault and delay in handover of colony in to Municipality and for delay in

¶26

¶27

providing basic amenities to the residents of such colonies and punish them accordingly in the interest of Justice.

¶28

10.3 That, any other relief / order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Raipur Development Authority to sale the mortgaged land or take appropriate action and develop the VIP Estate Colony and all other identical colonies by taking all required action and provide basic amenities there, in the interest of justice. ”

¶30

The present writ petition, styled as public interest, litigation has been filed by the petitioner for welfare of residents of VIP Estate Colony, Raipur constructed by respondent No. 5 / Pramila Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti after taking permission by respondents authorities, however, on 16.03.2013, respondent No.5 / Pramila Society wrote a letter to the respondent No. 4 / Municipal Corporation for handover of colony on pretext that it is developed but respondent No. 4 / Municipal Corporation is not accepted handover of the colony and in the middle, residents of the colony are suffering and thousands of residents of other colonies are suffering in Raipur with identical difficulties and the instant PIL is filed for the betterment of all such colonies and residents.

¶31

The respondent No. 5 / Pramila Grih Nirman Sahkari Society is a

¶32

¶33

housing cooperative society registered under the provisions of Chhattigarh Cooperative Society Act, 1960 bearing registration No.RPR/166/95 had proposed for construction of a housing colony in the name of VIP Estate Colony. The said proposal was submitted before respondent authorities and vide permission dated 30.10.2000, the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning given permission to develop residential colony under certain terms and conditions. While granting permission to Pramila Society vide permission dated 30.10.2000 certain conditions have been imposed whereby in Condition No. 3, it is prescribed that no development or construction can be made against development permission. Condition No. 4 prescribed that road and open places must be developed according to the map.

¶34

Condition No. 5 prescribed that all development work, construction work, water supply, sewerage / drainage and electrification should be developed by the applicant on his own cost. Condition No. 6 prescribed that demarcation of land should be done from Revenue Department and the demarcated map should be certified from the Town and Country Planning Office. As per condition No. 7 floor area ratio should not be more than 1:0. Condition No. 8 mandated to plant one tree in each hundred square meter as per Chhattisgarh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 1984. Condition No. 9 prescribed that as per provision of Act, 1973 the permission dated 30.10.2000 shall be effective for three years and if development work will not be completed within three years then permission dated 30.10.2000 must be legalized for which maximum period is five years from the

¶35

¶36

date of initial permission, meaning thereby that in any case the development is required to be completed within five years from 30.10.2000 i.e. upto 30.10.2005. Condition No. 10 prescribed that necessary facilities like water supply, sewerage, septic tank, development of open spaces, roads, electrification etc. should be provided on his own expenses by the applicant. Condition No. 11 mandates for providing water harvesting system. Condition No. 12 prescribed regarding land and band of drainage in natural flow side with minimum width of 0.5 m.

¶37

Condition 15 prescribed that despite of permission dated 30.10.2000, the applicant requires to get all the required permission from Government and Semi Government Department for further development and construction in the colony. Condition No. 17 prescribed that 10% land should be open place and 15% land should be reserved for Economic Backward Class and respondent No. 5 / Pramila Society will construct EWS quarters according to sanctioned map and hand over the constructed building to the prescribed authorities. Condition No. 20 prescribed for restraining construction upon certain plots till said plots are not released by RDA Raipur in accordance with law. Condition No. 21 prescribed that building construction permission should be taken from concerned Gram Panchayat and Condition No. 22 prescribed that 12% estimate amount of development works should be deposited in Gram Panchayat in accordance with law.

¶38

The houses are constructed only on 30% of plots of VIP Estate Colony till date, whereas construction should be completed within a

¶39

¶40

period of five years which was ended on 30.10.2005. Temporary arrangements have been made for other facilities, which is tried to be justified by a letter dated 16.03.2013 submitted by respondent No. 5 before the Municipal Corporation requesting for hand over of the colony to respondent Corporation. Till date, no EWS quarters have been constructed by respondent No. 5 neither 10% open land is developed nor 12% amount out of total estimate of development work is deposited in concerned Gram Panchayat. As per Rule 11 and 13 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 repealed by the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer,Terms and Condition) Rules 2013 (both rules 1998 and 2013 have similar provisions) prescribed that after receiving application of handover from colonizer the respondent Corporation is required to decided whether to accept the handover or to direct for completing development work and in case development work could not be completed then to take over the colony and complete the development work by selling mortgage land, EWS land, deposited amount etc. and if required recover the further amount spent on development from the colonizer but respondent Corporation is sitting over the application of hand over of VIP Estate Colony by respondent No.5. All the respondents have collecting all the taxes from its construction i.e. year 2001 onwards continuously without any break despite the fact not a single facility is provided.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the permission

¶42

¶43

dated 30.10.2000 was granted by the Town and Country Planning with certain terms and conditions but the respondent No. 5 / Pramila Society never complied the condition which were imposed.

¶44

Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents / State submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 16.08.2023, the Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department has filed his affidavit on 16.09.2023 stating therein that the records relating to the case was summoned from respondent No. 4 i.e. Municipal Corporation Raipur and a perusal of the records goes to show that for establishment of VIP Estate Colony permission was granted vide order dated 16.08.1995 by the Office of Town and Country Planning, Raipur to Kuber Griha Nirman Cooperative Society and Guru Harikrishna Grih Nirman Society. Further, an agreement was made on 26.10.1998 between the then Raipur Development Authority and Society with regard to the internal development of the colony for which eight plots were mortgaged with Raipur Development Authority. Later on, the respondent No.5 / Pramila Society purchased the colony from the above two societies and got lay out permission from the Town and Country planning Department. The permission was granted on 30.10.2000.

¶45

Vide Notification dated 25.02.2002, the Raipur Development Authority was dissolved and got merged with the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, i.e. Respondent No. 4. The said colony situated at Shankar Nagar, Raipur which later on came within the municipal limit of Raipur after 27^th December, 2003. At that time, the

¶46

¶47

colony was within the Municipal limit of Raipur and therefore, the Rules named as Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 was in force. It is further stated that however vide Notification dated 3^rd November, 2004, the Raipur Development Authority was again reconstituted. The reconstituted Raipur Development Authority has been entrusted for development works of different planning area, therefore, the Raipur Development Authority i.e. respondent No. 6 is not concerned with the issue involved in the present petition. It is further submitted that Rule 12(iv) of Rules, 1998 provides that the Colonizer has to provide information regarding completion of development work of the colony of the competent authority, therefore, the competent authority has to issue completion certificate within a period of 15 days on inspection of the development works of the colony if the development work are found to be completed.

¶48

It is further stated that in the light of the provisions as mentioned above in the present scenario, it is the responsibility of the colonizer, i.e. respondent No. 5 to intimate about the internal development works of the colony to the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur would inspect the development works of the colony and if the development works found to be completed then completion certificate will be issued otherwise as per Rule 13(2) of the Rules, 2013 action would be taken against the colonizer in accordance with law. Further, as per the amended Notification

¶49

¶50

dated 19^th June, 2019 in Rule 11 (Clause vii) of Rules, 2013, the colonizer has to form as Residence Welfare Association for further maintenance of the colony and formation of Residence Welfare Association, the burden shifts upon the Residence Welfare Association for maintenance of the colony.

¶51

Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that since the completion certificate towards the colony has not been issued till date, the petitioner should have approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority in an instance of delayed allotment of residential colony as the Real Estate Regulatory Authority would be the competent forum to adjudicate upon the grievance of the petitioner. Thus, despite an efficacious and specific alternative relief, the petitioner has misused the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court which in itself is ground enough to dismiss the instant petition. Moreover, with the change of law, the petitioner has become redundant and the alternative relief is the only viable relief available to the petitioner.

¶52

Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.5 submits that the petitioner has not stated with accuracy as to how the aforesaid inaction on the part of respondents is prejudicial to their rights and privileges. The petitioner has also not pleaded clearly as to how the inaction on the part of respondent Corporation and respondent No. 5 Pramila Society despite lapse of more than 20 years have failed to provide basic amenities in the VIP Estate Colony, Raipur and also failed to establish that despite collecting Municipal Taxes from the residents of the said colony, how the

¶53

¶54

basic amenities required to live in a colony are not available to the residents of VIP Estate Colony, Raipur, whereas the VIP Estate Colony Raipur was developed in the year 2001 itself and the respondent No. 5 has in the initial year itself started the full development all the basis amenities, which is required in the colony like construction of concrete road, overhead water tank for the purpose of supply of water, establishment of bore/tube well of the purpose of supply of water 24 hours to the residents of colony, construction of sewerage system, construction of drainage system throughout the colony, establishment of electric poles and transformers for the purpose of supply of electricity to every house in the colony plantation of trees in entire colony and also development of a beautiful garden also the development of beautiful garden and also development of facilities for the cultural and social development.

¶55

Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.6 submits that as per the records received from the Office of Town and Country Planning Raipur, it appears that, initially the entire land on which the VIP Colony is established was purchased by Kuber Grih Nirman Cooperative Society (Karamchari Grih Nirman Society) as well as Guru Hari Kishan Grih Nirman Society, it also appears that by virtue of the order dated 16.08.1995 the permission was granted to the above society for the development of the lands. However, an agreement was also made on 26.10.1998 between the Raipur Development Authority as well as Karamchari Grih Nirman Society for keeping the mortgage of eight lands

¶56

¶57

bearing from B-33 to B-36 and B-45 to B-48 admeasuring 216 sq.mts, for the purpose of development activities by the Karamchari Grih Nirman Society. Furthermore, it appears that by virtue of the registered sale deed respondent No. 5 purchased the lands from the above two society and got the permission from the town and country planning for the development of this colony.

¶58

The permission was accorded on 30.10.2000 (Annexure P-1), and by perusal of Clause 20 of the permission it appears that, the same condition as regard to agreement dated 26.10.1998 was continued to be remained in the permission dated 30.10.2000 also. It is further respectfully submitted that on perusal of the above clause 20 of Annexure P-1, it appears that respondent No.6 is only the custodian of the plots mortgaged to them, and apart from that the respondent No. 6 has no role to play in the development work, neither the respondent No.6 has the power to sale the mortgaged plot but to free the plots when the development activities in the colony would be completed. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner against the respondent No.6 for re-selling of mortgage plots is misconceived and misconstrued. It is further respectfully submitted a perusal of the entire records received from the Town and Country Planning, it appears that, an agreement has entered between the erstwhile society for keeping the eight plots mortgaged, which was continued to be carried out by the respondent no 5. But in the entire records no such documents is available which shows that, at any time the respondent No. 5 has approached the respondent No.6 for getting the plots released.

¶59

¶60

However, with due care and caution, it is also submitted that by perusal of paragraph 8 of the reply filed by the respondent No. 5, it appears that, respondent No. 5 has written one letter to Municipal Corporation (Pradhikaran Prakoshta) on 01.02.2002 (which is annexed as ANNEXURE R-5/5) as well as Municipal Corporation Raipur on 22.10.2002 since the answering respondent was not in existence at that point of time.

¶61

It is respectfully submitted that respondent No.6 have tried hard to relocate this letter and action taken thereafter, but could not got those files, however, by acknowledging its duty towards public at large, and by acknowledging its duty by perusal of the permission documents dated 31.10.2000 (Annexure P-1), the respondent No. 6 hereby states that, if the respondent No. 5 will provide the necessary documents to the respondent No.6 with regard to Clause 20 of the permission, the respondent No.6 will act in accordance with law and laid down procedure.

¶62

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶63

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the affidavit dated 16.09.2023 filed by the Secretary, Department of Urband Administration and Development it is the responsibility of the colonizer, i.e. respondent No. 5 to intimate about the internal development works of the colony to the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the competent authority i.e. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur would inspect the development works of the colony and if the development works

¶64

¶65

found to be completed then completion certificate will be issued otherwise as per Rule 13(2) of the Rules, 2013 action would be taken against the colonizer in accordance with law. Further, as per the amended Notification dated 19^th June, 2019 in Rule 11 (Clause vii) of Rules, 2013, the colonizer has to form as Residence Welfare Association for further maintenance of the colony and formation of Residence Welfare Association, the burden shifts upon the Residence Welfare Association for maintenance of the colony.

¶66

Respondent No. 5 shall make fresh application before the respondent No. 4 and the same shall be decided in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶67

In view of the above, the present public interest litigation stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶68

Sd/- Sd/-

¶69

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶70

Hem

Vikas Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vikas Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Kumar Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kumari Parwati Manikpuri and Another Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Seema Mukherjee Vs the Registrar General

Neeraj Vaishya Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd.

Akriti Agrawal Vs the High Court of Chhattisgarh