Chattisgarh High Court
Sudhir Thakur vs Chhattisgarh Housingh Board on 7 June, 2021
1
WA No. 111 of 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 111 of 2021
Sudhir Thakur S/o Shri Ashok Thakur, Aged About 36 Years
R/o. Dhanlaxmi Nagar, Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
(Not arrayed as Party/respondent in WPC No.1574/2021)
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Executive Engineer,
Division 1, Kabir Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue
Department , Mahanadi Mantralaya , Naya Raipur , Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Competent Authority Under The Urban Land (Ceiling And
Regulation) Act 1976, Collectorate , Raipur , District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector, Collectorate, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. Ghanshyam Sahu, S/o Phul Singh Sahu, Aged About 62
Years R/o 21, Verr Savarkar Nagar, Sondongari, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Appellant :- Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Advocate
For Respondent No.1:- Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate
For Respondent-State:- Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy.A.G.
For Respondent No.5:- Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
Proceedings through Video Conferencing
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Judgment On Board
WA No. 111 of 2021
By
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
07/06/2021
1. The appellant-Sudhir Thakur (not a party in the writ petition)
challenges the order passed by learned Single Judge
allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 to
challenge the order dated 26.2.2018 passed by the
competent authority, Raipur, under the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for brevity ''the Act, 1976'').
2. By the said order dated 26.2.2018, the competent authority
has directed to return the land bearing khasra No.658 ad-
measuring 7290 sq. meter to Ghanshyam Sahu, respondent
No.4 in the writ petition.
3. According to appellant, proceedings under the Act, 1976
were initiated against the original owner Phul Singh and
notification under Section 10 (1) was published on 28.1.1984
and thereafter final notification under Section 10(3) was
published on 17.5.1985. The entire land was handed over to
the Housing Board immediately after depositing the
compensation on 31.12.1988. In a subsequent proceedings,
respondent 5/ Ghanshyam Sahu made an application under
Section 3(2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Repeal Act, 1999 before the competent authority. Though
the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) was in
possession of the land, an order was passed by the
WA No. 111 of 2021
competent authority on 26.2.2018 without giving any
opportunity to the Housing Board, therefore, the writ petition
was preferred to challenge the said order.
4. Having found that the Housing Board was not heard by the
competent authority, before passing the order dated
26.2.2018, thereby violating the principles of natural justice,
the learned Single Judge rightly set-aside the order dated
26.2.2018 and remitted back the matter to decide afresh
after hearing the Housing Board as also the present
appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.5 have
argued on the merits of the entire dispute, however, we are
not appreciating the arguments for the simple reason that the
learned Single Judge has remitted the matter to the
competent authority to decide afresh after hearing the
necessary parties including the appellant herein and
respondent No.5.
6. Needless to say, all the parties would be at liberty to raise
arguments, file documents and evidence in support of their
plea, before the competent authority.
7. In view of the above, the present writ appeal stands disposed
of.
SD/- SD/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Ayushi
