Sumeet Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 July, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Sumeet Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 July, 2023

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

                                       1


                                                                      NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         WPC No. 3173 of 2023

Sumeet Sharma S/o Late Premchand Sharma Aged About 33 Years
Resident Of Main Market, New Khursipar, Bhilai District Durg,
Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Petitioner

                                    Versus

1.    State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
      Urban Administration And Development, Capital Complex, Atal
      Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2.    Municipal     Corporation,    Durg     Through   The   Commissioner,
      Municipal Corporation, Durg, Chhattisgarh

3.    Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg, Chhattisgarh

4.    Rajesh Sharma S/o Late Lakshminarayan Sharma Aged About
      52 Years Resident Of Main Market, Near Baba Sweets, New
      Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                         ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, Advocate For respondents/State : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, P.L. For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 2 17/07/2023

1. The limited grievance raised in this petition is of non-taking any decision by respondent No.2 and 3 on the application/complaint made by petitioner with respect to illegal colonization.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner who is joint owner with respondent No.4 of the subject land mentioned in the writ petition when after getting knowledge of illegal colonization started by respondent No.4 in joint ownership land, submitted an application before respondent No.3 intimating the authorities of illegal colonization. Respondent No.3 was duty bound to take note of the application and to take appropriate action and pass appropriate orders under the provisions of 292 (H) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Petitioner submitted representation on 07.06.2023 but till date respondent No.3 has not taken any action, therefore, a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to consider and to take appropriate decision on the application submitted by petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 would submit that in view of limited grievance raised by petitioner in this petition, he is having no objection. He submits that if decision/action have not yet been taken it will be taken in accordance with law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, the nature of grievance raised based on Annexure P-1 and Section 292(H) of 3 the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, without expressing anything on merits of the case, this petition is disposed off directing respondent No.3 to take appropriate decision on the representation (Annexure P-1) submitted by petitioner in accordance with law if not yet already taken expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court.

6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid observations and directions.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court