Priyadrshani Grah Nirman Sahkari ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6099 Chatt

                                   1


                                                                   AFR

           HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WA No. 178 of 2022
        (Arising out of order dated 23/03/2022 passed by learned Single
                         Judge in WP(C) No. 325 of 2021)
  •    Priyadarshani Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, 445-B,
       Priyadarshni Nagar, Raipur through its Vice President Shri
       Bharat Trivedi.
                                           ------Appellant/ Petitioner

                                 VERSUS
  1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Principal Secretary,
     Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh
  2. Public Works Department, through Principal Secretary,
     Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh
  3. Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Azad Chowk,
     Near Mahila Police Station, Chotapara, Janta Colony,
     Raipur Chhattisgarh
  4. Assistant Chief Executive Office, Rajya Sahri Vikas
     Abhikaran, Chhattisgarh, D-04, 4th Floor, Indrawati Bhawan
     Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh
  5. Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority,
     Bhakta Mata Karma Commercial Complex, 2nd Floor, New
     Rajendra nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
  6. Guru Ghasidas Sahakari Samiti Maryadit through its
     President, Guru Ghasidas Sanskritik Bhawan, New
     Rajendra nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                   -------Respondents

   For Appellant            :      Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate.
   For Respondents 1, 2 & 4 :      Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. Adv. General
   For Respondent 3          :     Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate
   For Respondent 5          :     Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
   For Intervener            :     Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate and
                                   Ms. Juhi Angoria, Advocate

            Date of Hearing              : 25.07.2022

            Date of Judgment             : 29.09.2022

           Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
                Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
                                JUDGMENT

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 23.03.2022

passed in WPC No. 3528/2021, whereby learned Single

Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant is

a registered Co-operative Society bearing Registration No.

116 dated 03.05.1985, was having ownership rights over the

land bearing khasra Nos. 377/1, 377/2, 377/3, 378/1, 378/2,

378/5 and 378/7 situated at Mauja: Tikrapara, P.H. No. 114,

Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Respondent 5/

Raipur Development Authority ( in short "RDA") implemented a

housing plan known as Katora Talab Scheme-16 on land in

Raipur, including 1.382 hectare of land owned by appellant-

society. One conveyance deed dated 16.06.1994 was

executed between Respondent 5/ RDA being party No. 1 and

appellant-Society being party No. 2. As per conveyance deed,

40% of total land, precisely 36 residential plots, are to be

transferred after development of the land in exchange of 1.382

hectare of land. The Respondent 5/ RDA prepared

development plan and after its approval, 36 residential plots

including Block A, B and C were handed over to appellant-

Society. Near the aforesaid Blocks, land was kept vacant as

per the layout plan. Later on, open land left as per approved

layout was surrounded by boundary wall and developed as

garden by doing plantation and later on, one statue was also

installed. On 08.04.2021, Members of the appellant-Society

came to know through newspaper that the open space in

between blocks A, B and C is to be used for construction of

"Sarv Samaj Samudayik Bhavan" and ₹ 3.60/- crore was

sanctioned for its construction. This made the appellant-

society to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition

pleading that the construction of Sarv Samaj Samudayik

Bhawan on the open space left in between blocks A,B and C

is illegal and arbitrary. It is pleaded that the decision and the

issuance of tender for construction of Samudayik Bhawan on

the land reserved and earmarked as "open space" in the

layout approved plan by Town and Country Planning is in

violation of the provisions of Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram

Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short "Adhiniyam, 1973").

Municipal Corporation is only an agency to maintain the area

handed over to it which was already developed under the

provisions of Adhiniyam, 1973 by Respondent 5/ RDA.

Change of use of land after coming into operation of

developed plan without prior permission of Director under the

Adhiniyam, 1973, is not permissible. Appellant-Society and

Respondent 6 were using the open space left, as garden for

the benefit of residents and society within the area. Both the

Societies were having their own community hall separately

and therefore there was no need for construction of

Samudayik Bhavan on the land reserved as open space in the

development plan. Petitioner sought following reliefs in the writ

petition:

"10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Respondent authorities to place entire record of the allocation of the plot bearing no... for the construction of Samudayik Bhavan.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ and direct Respondent authorities not to change the use of the land.

10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quashed the allocation of the land for the construction of Serv Samaj Samudayik Bhavan and direct to restore the condition as it was before allocation.

10.4 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."

3. Respondent 3/ Municipal Corporation, who initiated process

for construction of Samundayik Bhavan on the disputed land

by floating tender, submitted its reply raising objections that

the appellant has not approached the court with clean hands

and filed this petition only to settle the intersay dispute

between the appellant-society and Respondent 6-society.

Respondent 5/ RDA transferred entire area of Priyadarshni

colony and Guru Ghasidas colony to Municipal Corporation

about 30-40 years ago. The Respondent 3/ Municipal

Corporation is taking care of the roads, drains, garden and all

basic public amenities. The land in dispute is within the area of

Guru Ghasidas Grih Nirman Samiti. Respondent 3/ Municipal

Corporation, to protect the land from encroachment,

constructed compound wall, planted trees and therefore in the

photographs the open space as mentioned in the layout is

looking like a garden. After development of open space as

garden one statue of late Narsingh Mandal was also erected.

They have denied that the open land/ space is reserved for

development of garden. Appellant-Society is having its own

separate garden at khasra No. 363, 369 which is being used

by them. Appellant-Society and Respondent 6 society are very

old and open area is situated on the edge of appellant-society.

The demand made by residents of Respondent 6- society to

the Hon'ble the Chief Minister, was approved. Municipal

Corporation following due process of law initiated proceedings

for construction of Community Hall building. Contract for

construction of Samudayik Bhavan is also awarded and work

is in progress. Respondent 5/ RDA gave No Objection for

construction of "Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Sarv Samaj Manglik

Bhawan. Appellant-Society is not an affected party.

4. Respondent-State submitted reply on similar line. Respondent

5/ RDA pleaded that after developing land under its scheme,

colony has been handed over to Municipal Corporation for its

maintenance and Respondent 5/ RDA has nothing to do with

the said property. One K.P. Khande, resident of Respondent 6-

colony, filed an application for intervention supporting the

claim of Respondent 3/ Municipal Corporation and another

application for intervention was filed by contractor who

became successful bidder in the tender proceedings for

construction of new Samudayik Bhavan stating that the

construction work is started.

5. Learned Single Judge considering the pleadings made by

respective parties as also the submissions made by counsel

for respective parties dismissed the writ petition observing as

under.

"12. There is specific statement of respondent No.3 in the reply filed, that the petitioner Samiti has a separate garden situated in khasra No.363 and 369 measuring 14176 and 4938 square feet i.e. total 19114 square feet. Similar Statement has been made by respondents No.1 & 2 in their reply. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to rebut or contradict the statement made by respondents No.1 to 3 in their reply. Therefore, the statement and reply made by respondents No. 1 to 3 remains unrebutted. The layout map Annexure-P3 does not show the open space to be reserved for development of a garden. Therefore, the case laws cite by the petitioner do not give any guidance in the present case. On the basis of these observations, I am of this view that this petition is not fit to be allowed, hence, it is dismissed. The interim relief granted earlier by this Court stands vacated."

6. Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for appellant would

submit that learned writ court has not considered the subject

matter in issue, in the writ petition, in proper perspective. The

residential colony under Katora Talab Scheme-16 with A, B

and C blocks was developed on the land including the land

owned by appellant-society. Pursuant thereto, by way of

conveyance deed executed between appellant-society and

Respondent 5/ RDA, 40% of the developed land with 36

residential plots shown as Block A, B and C was handed over.

Between these blocks, open space was left under the layout

plan approved by the competent authority. He contended that

once the land development plan is approved by the competent

authority under the Adhiniyam, 1973, change of use of land by

any person or authority is not permitted without prior

permission of Director under the Adhiniyam, 1973. The land,

subject matter of this appeal and in dispute, is reserved for

open space/ garden under the approved layout plan by the

competent authority and as per the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S.

Muddappa and others, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 54, the

land/ garden reserved for public use is not permitted to be

used for any other purposes. Pleadings made by Respondent

3 and Respondents 1 & 2 in reply that Respondent 6-society

raised demand for construction of Samudayik Bhavan is also

not correct as the Respondent 6-society in its meeting

resolved to oppose the construction. He submits that Section

26 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 provides that prior permission of

Director is required for making changes in the sanctioned

layout plan and further Section 292 of the Municipal

Corporation Act, 1956 envisages bar upon the powers of the

Municipal Corporation for making any change in the approved

layout plan sanctioned by Director under the Adhiniyam, 1973.

Respondents have not taken any prior approval from the

competent authority. He also referred to layout plan available

in record to submit that in the layout plant, the land in dispute

is shown as open space.

7. Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for Respondent 3/

Municipal Corporation would submit that the learned Single

Judge has rightly taken note of the fact that two gardens are

available at khasra Nos. 363, 369, which was not rebutted by

appellant-society. There is no mention in the layout plan that

the open space is reserved for development of garden. He

further submitted that the area and land on which Respondent

3 initiated work of construction of Sarv Samaj Manglik

Samudayik Bhavan is already transferred by Respondent 5/

RDA to Respondent 3/ Municipal Corporation and it is

Respondent 3 who is taking care of roads, drain, electricity

and other basic amenities over the area. The demand made

by local residents of Respondent 6-society for construction of

Samudayik Bhavan, was approved by Hon'ble the Chief

Minister. After following due process, estimate for construction

of Samudayik Bhawan was prepared and sanctioned. Tender

was issued and now construction of building is started by

successful bidder (contractor). Vide Annexure R3/3 (annexed

in writ petition), Respondent 5/ RDA has already granted

permission to Respondent 3 for raising construction and

development of building over the subject land. Transfer of land

is also not denied by Respondent 5/ RDA. Construction of

Samudayik Bhavan is for the recreational activities and open

space could be used for recreational activities. In support of

aforementioned submission he referred to Rule 47 of the

Chhattisgarh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 1984 (in short "Rules of

1984").

8. Learned State counsel adopting the submissions of learned

counsel for Respondent 3 would submit that after developing

land by Respondent 5/ RDA as Katora Talab Scheme-16, it

was handed over to Respondent 3/ Municipal Corporation. It is

Respondent 3 who is maintaining drainage system, roads and

other basic amenities. He also referred Rule 47 of the Rules of

1984 and submitted that the open land is being used for

recreational activities and construction of Samudayik Bhavan

is for the same.

9. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for Respondent 5/ RDA

would submit that the permission and NOC granted by

Respondent 5 is for use of land according to the approved

layout.

10. Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for intervener/

contractor would submit that the intervener is suffering loss

because of stay of construction work, which had already been

started.

11. Ms. Juhi Angoria, counsel for private respondent, who is a

resident of Respondent 6-society, would support the impugned

judgment.

12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the pleadings and documents placed on record in the writ

appeal as well as in the writ petition.

13. It is not in dispute that the subject land is situated at Katora

Talab Scheme-16, developed by Respondent 5/ RDA as per

layout plan. It is also not disputed by learned counsel for

respondents that the land in dispute is shown as 'open space'

in between blocks A, B and C in the approved layout plan. The

grievance raised by appellant-society was that no building

construction can be raised on the land earmarked/ reserved

for open space or garden in the layout plan without prior

permission from the competent authority. Respondents admit

that the land on which construction of Samudayik Bhavan is

started by Respondent 3 is on the land reserved as open

space but it is submitted that under the Rule 47 of Rules of

1984, 'open land' can be used for recreational activities and

therefore construction of Samudayik Bhavan is being started.

In view of the aforementioned facts of the case, we find it

appropriate to extract relevant provisions of Adhiniyam, 1973

and rules framed thereunder.

"2. (b) "amenity" includes roads and streets, water and electric supply, open spaces, parks, recreational area, natural features, play-grounds, street lighting, drainage, sewerage and other utilities, services and conveniences.

(c) "building" means a house, hut, shed or other structure for whatever purposes and with whatever material constructed and every parts thereof, whether temporary or permanent and whether used as human habitation or not and includes a well, latrine, drainage work, fixed platform, verandah, plinth, door steps, compound wall, fencing and the like: and any work connected therewith but does not include plant or machinery comprised in a building;

(g) "development plan" includes a zoning, plan;

(h) "Director" means the Director of Town and Country Planning appointed under this Act;

(i) "existing land use map" means a map indicating the use to which lands in any specified area are put at the time of preparing the map, and includes the register prepared, with the map giving details of land use;

(k) "local authority" means-

(i) a Municipal Corporation constituted by or under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956;

(ii) a Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat constituted by or under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961

(iii) a Gram Panchayat constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993;

(u) "town development scheme" means a scheme prepared for the implementation of the provisions of a development plan by the Town and Country Development Authority and includes "scheme";

(v) "Town and Country Development Authority" means an authority established under Section 38;

14. Section 14 deals with 'Director to prepare development

plans'; Section 25 deals with 'Conformity with development

plan'; Section 26 deals with 'Prohibition of development

without permission'; Section 38, which deals with

Establishment of Town and Country Development Authority, is

extracted below for ready reference:

'38. Establishment of Town and Country Development Authority.- (1) The State Government may, by notification, establish a Town and Country Development Authority by such name and for such area as may be specified in the notification.

(2) The duty of implementing the proposal in the development plan, preparing one or more town development schemes and acquisition and development of land for the purpose of expansion or improvement of the area specified in the notification under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the provision of this Act vest in the Town and Country Development Authority established for the said area.

Provided that, the duty imposed on the Town and Country Development Authority shall, till that authority is established for any area under sub- section (1), be performed by the local authority having jurisdiction over such area as if it were a Town and Country Development Authority established under this Act.

(3) On the establishment of the Town and Country Development Authority for the area to which the

proviso to sub-section (2) applies, the following consequences shall ensue in relation to that area, namely :-

(i) all assets and liabilities acquired and incurred by the local authority in the discharge of the duty under the proviso to sub-section (2) shall belong to and be demand to be the assets and liabilities of the Town and Country Development Authority established in place of such local authority;

(ii) all records and papers belonging to the local authority referred to in clause (i) shall vest in and be transferred to the Town and Country Development Authority established in its place.

15. Section 49 deals with Town Development Schemes, which

reads as under:

"49. Town Development Schemes.- A town development scheme may make provision for any of the following matters,-

(i) acquisition, development and sale or leasing of land for the purpose of town expansion;

(ii) acquisition, relaying out of, rebuilding, or relocating areas which have been badly laid out or which has developed or degenerated into a slum;

(iii) acquisition and development of land for public purposes such as housing development, development of shopping centres, cultural centres, administrative centres;

(iv) acquisition and development of areas for commercial and industrial purposes;

(v) undertaking of such building or construction work as may be necessary to provide housing, shopping, commercial or other facilities;

(vi) acquisition of land and its development for the purpose of laying out or remodeling of road and street patterns;

(vii) acquisition and development of land for playgrounds, parks, recreation centres and stadia;

(viii) reconstruction of plots for the purpose of buildings, roads, drains, sewage lines and other similar amenities;

(ix) any other work of a nature such as would bring about environmental improvements which may be taken up by the authority with the prior approval of the State Government.

16. Section 50 deals with "Preparation of Town Development

Schemes", sub-section 1 of which empowers the town and

country development authority to declare its intention and to

prepare a town development scheme.

17. In the case at hand, Respondent 5/ RDA prepared the

development scheme known as Katora Talab Scheme-16. In

the layout prepared by RDA the land under the scheme-16

has been reserved for different purposes as appearing from

the layout plan filed by the parties and available in the record.

In the layout plan, the statement of area is mentioned as Area

under P & SP Green Commercial & Burial Gr.; Area under

group housing; Area under Planning; Area under Plots; Area

under Roads; Area under Amenities and Area under Open

/Park. Respondent 3 has not disputed that the area on which

construction of Samudayik Bhavan was sanctioned was an

'open space' as per the approved layout plan. The open

space as defined under Section 2(b) under the heading of

Amenities which is separate than that of parks and

recreational activities area. Under the Adhiniyam, 1973

different lands are to be reserved under the head of amenities

and open space in the development area is one of the

amenities as defined under Section 2(b). The open spaces are

left in the residential areas with some purpose to provide light,

air etc. Open spaces within the residential colonies are being

used by public at large.

18. Section 26 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 prohibits change of use of

any land or carry out any development of land without written

permission of the Director, except some exceptional works as

mentioned therein. Respondent 3 before raising construction

of Samudayik Bhavan on the land reserved as open space/

park under the layout prepared by Respondent 5 had not

made any application before the competent authority seeking

permission for change of use of land. Respondent 3/ Municipal

Corporation being one of the functionaries constituted by the

State Government is expected to act in accordance with the

provisions of law governing the field to preserve the open

places. Leaving open space, park and play grounds in a

development plan, is with a view to protect the residents of

colonies from the ill-effects of urbanization. Section 49 of the

Adhiniyam, 1973 provides for town development scheme

including development of land for play grounds, parks,

recreational centers and stadia. It is also not in dispute that

the open space at later point of time was surrounded by

boundary wall and developed as park. By the said

development, nature of land was not changed as it remained

open to sky. Constructing permanent building on open land

ie., Samudayik Bhavan (community hall) is change of use of

land, hence, under the provisions of law prior permission from

the competent authority is mandatory. Learned Single Judge

dismissed the writ petition only considering that, already two

parks are situated within the colony of appellant-society.

19. Question involved in this appeal is that whether Respondent 3/

Municipal Corporation can be permitted to change the use of

land, other then the layout plan without following due

procedure of law. The disputed open land (reserved as open

space) is adjoining two colonies and members of the

appellant-society being residents of same vicinity will definitely

be affected if the land reserved as 'open space' in the layout

is being used for construction of Samudayik Bhavan

(permanent building) without following provisions of law. For

the said reasons, submission of learned counsel for

Respondent 3 that the appellant/ petitioner has no locus

standi to file writ petition is not sustainable and it is hereby

repelled.

20. Learned Single Judge failed to consider that even if the 'open

space' is not reserved for development of garden then also

whether Respondent 3/ Municipal Corporation can construct a

permanent building in the name of 'Samudayik Bhavan' over

the land reserved as 'open space' under the layout prepared

by RDA at the time of developing the area known as Katora

Talab Scheme-16.

21. Petitioner, along with application for taking additional

documents on record, submitted proceedings of meeting of

Respondent No. 6-society dated 09.04.2022 as Annexure

AD1, wherein members present resolved to oppose

construction of building on garden and to file PIL. Respondent

No. 5/ RDA in its report filed in writ petition stated that colony

was handed over to Respondent No. 3/ Municipal Corporation

for maintenance. Annexure R3/3 filed by Respondent No. 3/

Municipal Corporation along with their reply is a memo dated

21.06.2021 issued by Respondent No. 5/ RDA in the form of

'NOC', wherein it is mentioned that the land for which NOC is

sought is reserved for open space and recorded owner is

Respondent No. 5/ RDA. It further mentioned that if applicant

ie., Respondent No. 3 uses the land as per layout, the office of

Respondent No. 3 is having no objection.

22. From the contents of memo of 'No Objection' on which

Respondent No. 3 is harping to say Respondent No. 5 granted

No Objection, in clear term gave no objection for use of land

as per layout. The land reserved as open space in layout is

not in dispute and therefore the action on the part of

Respondent No. 3 in constructing Samudayik Bhawan is

illegal.

23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dr. G.N. Khajuria and

others vs. Delhi Development Authority and others

reported in (1995) 5 SCC 762 , while challenging the action of

Delhi Development Authority of allotment of land reserved for

park in residential colony for nursery school held that the said

allotment amounted to misuse of power and is illegal and held

thus:

"8. We, therefore, hold that the land which was allotted to respondent No.2 was part of a park. We further hold that it was not open to the DDA to carve out any space meant for park for a nursery school. We are of the considered view that the allotment in favour of respondent No.2 was misuse of power, for reasons which need not be adverted. It is, therefore, a fit case, according to us, where the allotment in favour of respondent No.2 should be cancelled and we order accordingly. The fact that respondent No.2 has put up some structure stated to be permanent by his counsel is not relevant, as the same has been done on a plot of land allotted to it in contravention of law. As to the submission that dislocation from the present site would cause difficulty to the tiny tots, we would observe that the same has been advanced only to get sympathy from the Court inasmuch as children, for whom the nursery school is meant, would travel to any other nearby place where such a school would be set up either by respondent No.2 or by any other body."

24. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Anjuman E.

Shiate Ali and another vs. Gulmohar Area Societies

Welfare Group and others, reported in (2020) 20 SCC 698,

while considering the dispute of raising construction over the

plots shown as open space/ garden in the approved layout,

has held thus:

"24. ...Merely because in such development plan prepared, in the area shown for residential purpose, authorities have not indicated the open spaces/garden, which were already left in the approved layout in such residential area, appellants cannot claim the benefit of making constructions in the plots which were left towards open space/garden. It is fairly well settled that the open spaces/garden left in an approved layout, cannot be allowed for the purpose of constructions. However, it is to be noticed that if one wants to utilize a big plot within the area of residential usage as indicated in the development plan, it is mandatory to sub-divide such big plots into smaller plots for utilizing them for the purpose of construction. When the layout is to be approved, certain percentage of area is required to be left towards roads, open plots, garden etc. ...

25. It is also to be noticed that the open spaces are required to be left for an approval of layout or for the purpose of creating lung space for the owners of other plots where constructions are permitted. The 4 plots bearing Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6, were sub-divided at the instance of the appellant-Society in its entirety and approval was taken for dividing such land into 61 plots. It is not open to claim for construction in the two plots which are reserved for open spaces/garden spaces also. It is fairly well settled that in an approved layout, the open spaces which are left, are to be continued in that manner alone and no construction can be permitted in such open spaces. The Development Plan which was submitted in the year 1999, as per the 1991 DCR, will not divest the utility of certain plots which are reserved for open spaces in the approved layout. The appellants cannot plead that such a layout was only temporary and as a stop gap arrangement, the said two plots were shown as open spaces/garden and now they be permitted to use for construction."

25. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case where

undisputedly the land subject matter of appeal is reserved as

open land/ space in the layout and also considering the

aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of

the view that construction of Sarv Samaj Samudayik Bhavan

on land reserved as open space is illegal. Respondent 3/

Municipal Corporation cannot use the land for any purpose

other than the land reserved in layout plan without seeking

prior permission of the competent authority.

26. For the foregoing, impugned order passed in Writ Petition (C)

No. 3528/2021 is set aside and writ appeal is allowed.

Respondent 3/ Municipal Corporation is directed not to change

the use of land, subject matter of writ petition, situated at

Katora Talab Scheme-16 in between Blocks A, B and C.

Respondent No. 3 is further directed to restore the condition of

the subject land as it was, before starting construction of Sarv

Samaj Samudayik Bhavan, within a period of 04 months from

the date of passing of order.

27. The contractor will be at liberty to avail such remedy as may

be available to him under the law.

                  Sd/-                                      Sd/-
          (Arup Kumar Goswami)                      (Parth Prateem Sahu)
              Chief Justice                                Judge




Pawan