Govind Jha Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. New Raipur, Civil And Revenue Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Samta Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Through Its President, Chirhuldih, P.S. Chirhuldih, Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

		----Respondents
For P	etitioner	: Mr. Manoj Paranjape and Mr. A.D. Diwan,
		Advocates.
For	Respondent-	: Mr. Arvind Dubey, G.A.
State
For	Respondent	: Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Advocate on behalf of
No. 2		Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

16/10/2024

2 / 5

The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) by which his revision has been dismissed and the order passed by the lower authorities have been affirmed.

¶18

The petitioner has prayed the following reliefs are as under:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 09.04.13 passed by respondent no. 1 passed in Revision Case no. 78/06/2012, in the matter of "Govind Jha V/s Samta Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit" (Annex P-1) and consequently the order dated 09.03.99 (Annex. P-6) may also be set-aside.

¶19

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondents to remove the construction over plot no. 456-A of the respondent Society and then recover the loan amount.

¶20

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record in connection with the case of the petitioner.

¶21

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

¶22

The petitioner was allotted plot no. 455 admeasuring 2400sqft (60x40) by the respondent No.3. The adjacent land beside the plot of the petitioner i.e. 30ft wide road was allotted as Plot No. 456A to one Mr. Kailash Agrawal. In May, 1994, Kailash Agrawal, husband of respondent No.2 started construction over the said land. An application was submitted in the office of the Joint

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

Director, Town & Country Planning, Raipur by the Manager-incharge of the respondent No. 3 for the correction of the map/layout of the society. An application u/s 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 was presented before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Raipur by the petitioner. Reply to the application of Manager-in-charge of respondent No. 3 was given by the Joint Director Town & Country Planning stating that the correction or change in the layout of the society is not permissible and the road between Plot no. 455 and Plot no. 456 should not be interfered. The petitioner was informed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Division No. 6, Municipal Corporation Raipur vide its letter that the respondent No. 2 has been served with a notice for stopping the construction of the house, because the same is illegal as there is no sanctioned map in accordance with the layout. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 sold the Plot No.456A to one Kavita Agrawal. The order of Deputy Director Cooperative Societies was challenged by an application u/s 64 of the Act, 1960 made by the respondent No.2, allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay the loan with an interest of 12.5% P.A. with penal interest of 3%. The petitioner was informed by the Joint Director, Department of Town & Country Planning Raipur vide its letter that the change in layout has not been permitted and the 30ft wide road has not been omitted from the layout. An application was made by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 for one time settlement with a Cheque No. 698026 amounting to Rupees 4,33,360/- with a condition mentioned in the application. Appeal u/s 77 of the Cooperative Societies Act preferred by the petitioner before the Joint Director Cooperative Societies was also dismissed. The 2^nd appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Societies was also dismissed. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the Registrar was returned to the petitioner with a liberty to produce the same before the competent

¶25

4 / 5

¶26

authority. An application u/s 67 of the act was also dismissed by the Co-operative Societies Tribunal.

¶27

The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur has filed this petition, the contention of the petitioner is that when a dispute was raised under Section 64 of the Cooperative Societies Act by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Samta Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit for recovery of loan, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies has passed an order dated 09.03.1999 by which the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,59,353 along with applicable interest. When an appeal was moved before the appellate Court by order dated 26.12.2006, the matter was closed on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.

¶28

In the second appeal filed by the petitioner it was contented that the order for recovery was not passed in accordance with law and the Courts below were unjustified while passing order of compromise as such the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar, Tribunal as well as the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh is liable to be set aside which has been turned down by the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh holding that the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶29

It was submitted by the petitioner that the impugned order passed on the basis of aforesaid premises is not in accordance with law. The merits of the case has not been considered in a proper prospective and a illegal order has been passed.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

From the bare perusal of the impugned order, it seems that the original order of recovery passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies is in accordance with law as while giving proper opportunity of hearing the said order has been passed on

¶32

5 / 5

¶33

merits and there is no ground available to the petitioner to challenge the same and, therefore, when during the first appeal the parties have settled their dispute by way of compromise, the matter was closed on the basis of compromise, however, even after entering into compromise the petitioner has again challenged the same on filthy grounds. On the one hand, the petitioner is enjoying the property and on the other hand he is raising objection that he was shown the lane question stating that there was road adjacent to his plot which has been subsequently sold as such his Easementary right has been affected and the market value of the land of the petitioner has been lowered down. The petitioner is not getting proper light and air due to sale of the land which was earlier a lane, the dispute as raised by the petitioner stating that his Easementary right is affected cannot be entertained by the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar, Tribunal as well as the Co-operative Department, State of Chhattisgarh, if any Easementary right is affected the petitioner can very well approach before the competent Civil Jurisdictional Court seeking relief of Easementary right, the petitioner under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot file a petition where disputed questions of facts are involved and which cannot be adjudicated by the writ Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.

¶35

No order as to cost(s).

¶36

Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶37

Raghu Jat

Govind Jha v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Jha v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yudhishthir Prasad Patel (Died) Through Legal Heirs- (1) Gopi Lal Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Krishna Devi Agrawal and Ors. Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Church of Christ Mission in India Vs C.G. Information Commission

Govind Jha Vs State Of C.g. and Ors.

Golchha Agro Product Private Lmt. and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue And Anr.