S^ BE v. StateofC.G

Chhaparu Paachayat Trust Through : Its President Shri Hohaa lal Kesarwani Nahaipara, Bhagwati Matadoor, Traasport, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION WRIT THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT(S) OR ORDER (S) OR DIRECTIONS(S) ETC. ARTICLE UNDER OF The petitioners niost respectfuUy state as under : XI-HC-78 ~S^S ^ww^, yrd^'Ko, [s|<rtl'H^< W.P.^o. ^-/5 6/2-0^-5' t>^ 200 »11+1^11 ShHlch STT^TtraW (^<sli^cl<^8T) ^n^T^rf^ri^ cTSTT^TRSTshHl^ S^TW^cf^TI^T <^l^I^l^rl HPraY ^* f^t <fSl^i< ^^rf^T^TT^T

04.10.2006 ShriY.C. Sharma, counst Shri SushU Dubey, respondents No. 1 & 3, ^el fbr fhe petitioners. Govt Advocate (he State/ Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr. ^dvocate wifh Shri Paakaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2, Shri Raja Sharoia^ count sel for respondent No, 4. Shri Sunil Otwani, coiia^el for respondent No.5. Ai^unients heard. Order dictated as foUow^ Orid Order 10.2006) (04 By way of fhis writ pet| tiie Constitution of India, fh^ Samta Colouy, Raipur, have ^ titie respondents, pardcularly shall not inake aay coinnxerci^l plots Nb. 472 & 473 (wrongly clause). It has furfher be^ constructed, should not be because tiie same is uot beiag ^tion filed under Ardcle 226/227 of petitioners, who are residents of (rayed for issuaace of a writ against [agauist respondent No.5 tiiat they i^l-cuni- niarriage haU on fhe site of Inentioned as 272 & 273 in the reUef |n prayed fhat used for any coxaiaercial purpose |iaeaat for fhe said purpose. fhe buUding, The brief facts are different houses, situated ui ^ No.5 has also got soiae piece these petitioners are residing in ^aaita Colony, Raipiir. Respondent (|>f laad in the same Colony aad fhe; XI-HC-78 7^( -^ww^, w^v\<o, ^wwy. HW^TTSh+llch ^^9^0. ^l^^l^O^ ^W^ 2UO 3<1^1 Mfth (yi^q^sT) 3T[^T^T^icb cW3TT^Tsh^l<=h ?^<TTW ^fN'3T^T cbi^fci41^ ^i^cnT ^ ^ft <Ri<-di< ^3Tf^q'3:TT^T a over the sanie. It is stated that have raised certain constructio alongwifh fhe residential prenjdses, a coniniunity centre aad a tnicted by respondent No.5. The teniple etc. has also been con^ ^round fhat respondent No.5 is petitioiiers have taken fhis [mnercial purpose as Gomniercial- coastructing a buUding for coj cxun-inarriage hall, which is co^itnaiy to the lay-out of raaster plaa fhe rule of Housing Society and of schemie No.9 aad is agains^ against the uitercst offhepeop] have filed fhis petitioa, constructed on the plote irx allowed to be used for coni] ap^ le residing nearby. The petitioners )rehending that if the buildiug }ossession of respondent No,5 is ^rcial purpose, it wiU crcate a nuisaace ia the residential a|'ea of tiie society and the saxne should be prohibited by issiiii^g fhe above pi^yed directions by Uiis Court. After issuaace of fhe noti ce, respondent No.5 has caused its It has been ^ ite separate rctara. appearance and it has also file| |tum fhat fhe said respondent has contended vide para 2 of the r^ not constructed aay conuiiercia^-cuni-inarriage haU on aay portion contraiy, fhe said respondent has of fhe aforesaid land. On fhe it has veiy speci&<tally been nientioned fhat constructed a resideiitial-cuia-^oxDiniunity centre for fhe purpose of pronioting socio-religious ac|jvities. Further, in para 5 of fhe retura, pemiission, which has been ^ranted by respondent No.2 vide Anuexure R-l, clearly denionsfrates that it has been granted to niake constructioa for rcsidentjial purpose. Respondent No.5 had niade fhe statenient fhat fhe <<|aforesaid prcmises would be used XI-HC-78 3"^ ^i^Krt^, ^Tfl^Ko, facnKiy ,t/o<f.Mo\^-;^A^s' *11*1CTI «t*1|Ct> ^200 RT^^cft w^i^rf^ri^ <T8rr 3TT^T ^TN? ?^<TTW ^cT ^TT^T ^ cM^f^i<TITi HTR^rf ^f tel^t <Ri<^i< ^3Tf^T3Ti^T for fhe socio-rcligious activity s|nd flie saiae would not be used for coolaiercial purpose^. Refemng to ftiese appearing on behalf of uiidertakiag ia fhe fonn of abotve of respondent No,5, the gnevanjce paragi^phs respo4deat offhe retum, leamed counsel No,5 subuiite fhat siace the statement is given in fhe retam raised by the petitioners and the relief claimed vide reUefclause f^o. 7.1 and 7.2, are satisfied. Leanied couiisel for resibondeat No,5 also takes me to fhe /^rf 3/W^Srf ^TT 1 f^ft ^ docunient Annexure R-l, whic^i is a sanction order, ia which vide para^ 14, it has been nientioned| Mul ^m^y uv^r ^ ^B^ W ^ HRcicft ^^ ^7 <f>l4cllS ^ ^ff 1 JN fiwiyiK ^ f^Rf^ ^°f uf^<f/^) ^fwr ^ wf ^ 1 M I" He also takes me to fhe site it has further been mentioned for fhe proposed rcsidential rae to conviace fhaf in any ni< condition of sanction aad fhe use aiiy portion offhe preniises pl^a, fiiled as Annexure R-2, m which piat the saaction has been graated co^aplex. This all has been shown to ^nner, fhere is no violation of any ^espondent No.5 never intended to for aay coimnercial purpose. XI-HC-78 3:5^" ^tPTR:ra', ^Tliy'Ko, (s«Y<W^< i' *11*1CTt ff»*(ld» , ltJ,P.Mo< ST/J^/Z^oS^•^200 3il^i <4s|t(i (yI^cK^eT) 3TI^T^)T^i<=h ^T^^T^i B^TTW ^fN' ^n^r — ^ <=tii^t<n41^ w^rf ff tel^)'<Ri^i< ^3Tf^T3TT^?T giveu by respondent No.5 >kmg to fhe relief(s) claiaied m fhe of prosecutiag tliis petition any of on fhe above undertakiag dyposed petition is finaUy disposed of at ration that respondent No.5 wiU act >ns of fhe sanctiou by which it has In view of fhe above un^ertakiag in para 5 offtie retura and lo^ petition, fhere is no necessit^ niorc and fhe saxcie can be itself. In view of fhe above, fhis stage wifh fhe obserj^ ia accordaxice wifh the conditi^ been graiited permission by abide by fhe underfcakmLg given|by This petition staads fin^Hy observations. Vatti ^-^/^ Corporation aad it witt also be it before this Court. disp^sed of with fhe aforesaid ^—-^- - -—' Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge P.T.O.