Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Seretary, Housing And Enviroment Department Mantralaya Raipur, District
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.23 14:17:43 +0530 2025:CGHC:34326 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1009 of 2019 Prithvi Developers Through Partners Ashok Lunkad, Lunkad Building Jain Mandir Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Seretary, Housing And Enviroment Department Mantralaya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Secretary Urban Development Department, Mantralaya,raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Jagdalpur., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Development Authority Through The Registrar, Shastri Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State For Intervener
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18. 07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kindl perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 27.11.2018 & 2 01.04.2010, 14.02.2019 are bad in law, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order dated 27.11.2018 & 01.04.2010, 14.02.2019. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2010, whereby respondent No. 3 has canceled the order dated 14.10.2008, whereby a colony was handed over to the Municipal Corporation and a completion certificate was issued. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 27.11.2018, whereby respondent No. 4/Chhattisgarh Real Estate Development Authority directed the petitioner to get the registration under the provisions of the C.G. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short “RERA, 2016”). 3. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and development of housing projects. The petitioner moved an application for diversion of land before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagdalpur, situated at village Hatkachora. The order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 15.09.2003. The petitioner applied for registration under the provisions of the C.G. Municipal Corporation Act as a coloniser, and vide order dated 29.01.2003, it was registered, and later on, it was amended vide order dated 30.09.2005. The Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD), Jagdalpur, sanctioned the development plan submitted by the petitioner vide order dated 09.04.2003. The Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, also granted permission for the construction of houses vide order dated 09.12.2003. The Collector, Jagdalpur, vide order dated 31.01.2004, permitted the petitioner to sell the 3 plots under the provisions of the law. The petitioner moved an application before the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, for physical inspection of the completed construction on 31.10.2007, 17.06.2008, 12.08.2008 and 29.09.2008. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.10.2008, respondent No. 3 issued the completion certificate. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 01.04.2010 cancelled its earlier order dated 14.10.2008 on the ground that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Rule 10 of the Coloniser Rules. The petitioner made a representation, and it was rejected by the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, vide order dated 14.02.2019. 4. On 25.03.2016, the C.G. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was promulgated for the regulation of the promotion of the real estate sector. On 27.11.2018, respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner to get registered with the authority. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.04.2010, whereby the completion certificate issued by respondent No. 3 was canceled and the order dated 27.11.2018, whereby the petitioner has been directed to get registered with RERA. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the completion certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.10.2008, and the project was handed over to the Municipal Corporation. He would further submit that without authority of the law and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the said order was canceled by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 01.04.2010. He would also submit that as the project was completed in the year 2008, there was no occasion for respondent No. 4 to issue notice to get registered under the provisions of the Act, 2016. He would pray to allow this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the State & Intervener would oppose. Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate appearing for the Intervener, 4 would submit that the petitioner has not challenged the minutes of the meeting of the President-in-Council(PIC) of the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, dated 22.06.2009, whereby a decision was taken to cancel the completion certificate issued to the petitioner dated 14.10.2008. He would further submit that vide letter dated 01.04.2010, the Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, has communicated the decision taken in the meeting dated 22.06.2009, and the said order has not been challenged. He would also submit that the petitioner has been directed to get registered with the RERA, as till date, the work has not been completed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State & Intervener would also submit that while handing over the Sun City colony project to the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur, a spot inspection was conducted by Sub-Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer, wherein, it was found that the petitioner has not installed electricity poles for street light and also has not completed Water Bound Macadam (WBM) road. It is also contended that the order was passed to release all mortgaged land in the anticipation that the petitioner would complete the work within a period of one month. They would further contend that vide order dated 01.04.2010, the position prior to 14.10.2008 was restored and a direction was issued to the petitioner to complete the work; otherwise, proceedings would be initiated for the cancellation of the coloniser license. They would contend that a full opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. 8. It is further argued that as per Rule 2(b) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal (Registration, Restrictions and Conditions of Colonisers) Rules, 2013(Rules, 2013), the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation has been prescribed as the competent authority to take action. They would further argue that the authority has exercised the power according to the Rules, 5 2013. It is also stated that though the order was passed on 01.04.2010, the petitioner has filed this petition in the month of February, 2019, and the delay part has not been explained properly. It is also argued that the petitioner has not challenged the decision taken by the PIC dated 22.06.2009, whereby the order dated 14.10.2008 was canceled. It is further argued that the resolution dated 22.06.2009 was filed along with the intervention application on 09.02.2020, but the petitioner failed to challenge it. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 10. The petitioner completed the project of Sun City colony in the year 2008, and after inspection with certain directions, a completion certificate was issued on 14.10.2008. The petitioner was directed to complete the pending work within a period of 1 month, and when no steps were taken, the President-in-Council (PIC) passed a resolution on 22.06.2009 and canceled the order dated 14.10.2008. Pursuant to such a decision, respondent No. 3 issued the order dated 01.04.2010. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not assigned reasons for non-completion of the pending work. He has taken the ground that he was not afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing while passing the order dated 01.04.2010. Perusal of the order dated 14.10.2008 would show that the petitioner was granted one month's time to complete the pending work, and thus, he was afforded the opportunity of hearing and he had the prior knowledge that if the work was not completed within a period of one month, an adverse decision may be been taken against him. 11. The order was passed by respondent No. 3 on 01.04.2010, and against
Decision
such an order, the petitioner has filed the writ petition on 28.02.2019. In 6 para 7, it is stated that an order has been issued on 27.11.2018; therefore, the petition is within the limitation. The order dated 27.11.2018 was issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner was directed to get registered under the RERA. The subject matter of the order dated 01.04.2010 and the order dated 27.11.2018 are entirely different, and the authorities who issued both orders are also entirely distinct. The petitioner has not assigned reasons for assailing the order dated 01.04.2010 by filing the petition on 28.02.2019, and thus, the petition filed by the petitioner, whereby the order dated 01.04.2010 has been challenged, is hit by the principle of delay and laches. 12. With regard to the order dated 27.11.2018, as the petitioner is involved in the Real Estate Development project and he has not completed the pending development work, he was directed to get registered according to the provisions of the Act, 2016. As the petitioner failed to complete the development project, it would come within the definition of ‘on going project’ and the registration under the RERA would be mandatory according to Section 3(1) of the Act of 2016. 13. The petitioner has not challenged the resolution passed by the President- in-Council dated 26.06.2009; therefore also, the petition is erroneous. 14. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders impugned. Consequently, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail of the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant