Kanuj Khanna vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3619 Chatt

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           Order Sheet
                 Review Petition No.79 of 2022

1. Kanuj Khanna, S/o Shri Harish Khanna, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
  Village Nakti, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Renuka Khanna, W/o Shri Kanuj Khanna, Aged About 37
  Years, R/o Village Nakti, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                         ---- Petitioners
                              Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Town & Country
  Planning Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Capital
  Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Raipur, District : Raipur,
  Chhattisgarh

3. Joint Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Regional Office Raipur,
  District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority, Through Its Chief
  Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority,
  Raipur, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Development
  Authority, Raipur, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

6. Gram Panchayat Nakti Through Its Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat
  Nakti, Block Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

7. Building Officer, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority,
  Raipur, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
   8. Additional Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Regional Office
     Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                          ---- Respondents

13/05/2022 Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G.A. for the State.

Mr. Amrito Das, counsel for respondents No.4, 5 and

7.

Heard on admission.

It is submitted that all the grounds that are raised in the Writ Petition (Civil) No.1795/2022 dated 28.04.2022 has not been considered while deciding it. The submission of the respondents' side that the land belonging to the petitioners was part of the development plan of N.R.D.A. was only submission regarding which, no report or documents were filed and the impugned order has been passed on the first date of hearing, therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record.

It is also submitted that other land owners in the same area have been permitted to retain their constructions, therefore, the action of the respondents against the petitioners is discriminatory.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Ansari Vs. Chief Election Officer and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 95 and in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320.

Learned State counsel representing respondents No.1, 2 and 3 opposes the submissions and submits that there is no ground made out under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. to review the petition.

Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the respondents No.4, 5 and 7 also opposes the Review Petition on the ground that there is no ground present to review the order.

It is true that the petition has been disposed off at the preliminary stage before granting any opportunity of filing reply to the respondents' side, therefore, it appears that this Review Petition has some substance. Detailed arguments in this case shall be heard again on the next date of hearing.

Also, heard on I.A. No.01, an application for grant of interim relief, which is opposed by the learned counsel representing respondents.

For the present, it is ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners by the respondents side until the next date of hearing.

List this case after summer vacation.

Sd/-

Monika (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge