M/S Gaurav Promoters And Builders vs Basu Chakraborty
2022 Latest Caselaw 390 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No. 43 of 2022
M/s Gaurav Promoters And Builders, Through Its Partner Shri Ragvendra
Chandrakar, Having Its Registered Office At Shriram Heritage, Katora
Talab Raipur Chhattisgarh
                                                               ---- Appellant
                                  Versus
1.   Basu Chakraborty S/o Late Shri A. K. Chakraborty, Aged About 66
     Years R/o Sector-III, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh
2.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Joint Director, Town and Country
     Planning, Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Naya Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh
3.   The Collector, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4.   Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, District Office, Raipur,
     Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Abhyuday Singh, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

24.01.2022

Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1 and Mrs. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate appearing

for respondents No.2 to 4.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 20.12.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.3949 of 2021,

whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without

notice to the present appellant, recording as follows :

"5. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of

with a direction to Respondent No.3 to decide the

representation made by Petitioner in respect of the

layout plan approved by Respondent No.4 so far as the

property that situates at Khasra No. 394/6, 394/8 &

419/7, P.C. No.13, Village Tatibandh, Raipur is

concerned.

6. Let appropriate decision in this regard be taken by

Respondent No.3 after hearing all the affected and

interested parties to the property, in accordance with law,

at the earliest, preferably within a period of 60 days from

the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the case. The Authorities have to

take a decision strictly in accordance with the rules and

laws governing the field."

3. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

though the order recites that respondent No.3 is to take an appropriate

decision after hearing all the affected and interested parties and though

the Court had not expressed any opinion on merits of the case, in the

facts of this case, opportunity ought to have been granted to the appellant

before passing any such order inasmuch the writ petitioner is trying to

resuscitate an issue, which was decided way back by an order dated

01.03.2011, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.135 of 2011

(Annexure A/2, Page-15 in the writ appeal), which was also filed by the

present petitioner. It is submitted by him that by the aforesaid order, this

Court had categorically observed that respondent No.5 therein (appellant

herein) had nothing to do with the plots bearing Khasra Nos.394/6, 394/8

and 419/7, situated in PC No.13, Village Tatibandh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Mr. Abhyuday Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.1 / writ petitioner, however, submits that it is not a case where the writ

petitioner was seeking to revive a stale issue.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having regard

to the fact that earlier writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner,

registered as Writ Petition (C) No.135 of 2011, it would be more

appropriate to decide the present writ petition after hearing the appellant

instead of relegating the matter for consideration of respondent No.3,

without hearing the appellant.

6. Accordingly, order dated 20.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition (C)

No.3949 of 2021 is interfered with and the matter is remanded back to

the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

7. The writ appeal stands allowed.

                        Sd/-                                         Sd/-
               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (N. K. Chandravanshi)
                    Chief Justice                                  Judge

Anu