1 2025:CGHC:10264 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1399 of 2014 • Bharat Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, a registered society duly registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 bearing its registration No. RPR 62/80-81, Having Registered Office At 15/480, Manjusha Rajbhawan Marg Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur C.G. Through Its President Lalit Kumar Singhania S/o Late Jeevan Lal Singhania Age 61 Yrs R/o 15/481, Civil Lines P.S. Civil Lines Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Cooperative, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Secretary Department Of Housing And Environment State Of C.G. Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Joint Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. The Registrar Co - Operative Societies Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6. Shri Ramnath Beemsen Charitable Trust, Through Its Chief Trustee Samta Colony Chiruldih Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7. Rajesh Agrawal S/o Late Bheemsen Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o “Krishna Kunj” Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 5/ State For Respondents No. 6 & 7 : : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03/03/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure-P/1) with all consequential orders & actions; 10.2 That, the Honourable Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ / writs, order / orders directing the respondents quashing the development permission granted to respondent No. 6 on 27.03.2014; 10.3 Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioner, which this Hounourable court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conferencing would submit that the petitioner is the Cooperative Housing Society duly registered under the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. He would contend that the petitioner society developed and allotted plots to its members for the purpose of the construction of residential houses. He would further contend that some of the members executed sale deeds in favour of respondents No. 6 and 7. He would also submit that respondents No. 6 and 7 contrary to the applicable rules and bye-laws raised the construction of a hostel over the purchased land. He would further contend that respondent No. 6 moved an application before the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning seeking relief of amalgamation as the plots were situated in the territory of different Cooperative Societies. Mr. Ashish Surana would argue that the application so moved by respondent No. 6 was rejected by the Deputy Director, Town and 3 Country Planning vide order dated 23.10.2013. He would further argue that the Director, Town and Country Planning without any authority of law directed the Deputy Director to review its order. He would also argue that the matter was referred to the State Government for appropriate direction. He would state that respondent No. 3 vide order dated 04.03.2014 passed the order of amalgamation in favor of respondents No. 6 and 7. He would further submit that permission was also granted to respondents No. 6 and 7 to raise the construction of the hostel vide order dated 27.03.2014. Mr. Ashish Surana would vehemently submit that on 17.02.2014, an objection was raised by the petitioner before respondent No. 2 raising various grounds. He would contend that the objection so raised by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by respondent No. 3 while passing the order impugned. He would also submit that the proceeding under Section 74 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was not maintainable at all before the Director and respondent No. 3. He would pray to quash the orders Annexure P/1 dated 04.03.2014 and grant of permission to raise the construction of hostel dated 27.03.2014 (Annexure P/8). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 6 and 7 would submit that the petitioner was afforded the sufficient opportunity. They would contend that respondent No. 6 purchased the property from individual members of the petitioner society. They would further contend that after the execution of sale deeds by the private 4 members of the society, in favor of respondent No. 6, the petitioner has no right over those plots. They would further contend that the objection raised by the petitioner was duly considered by respondent No. 3 and the same is evident from the order dated 20.02.2014. They would further argue that respondents No. 6 and 7 have already raised the construction of a hostel pursuant to permission granted by the State Government dated 27.03.2014. They would also contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The limited grievance raised by Mr. Ashish Surana is that though an objection was raised before respondent No. 3 in the proceeding under Section 74 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, the same was not taken into consideration. The note sheets of respondent No. 3 would show that on 17.02.2014, the petitioner was shown absent and on 20.02.2014, the final order was passed, where it was observed that on 17.02.2014 an objection was placed on record by the petitioner. The order passed by respondent No. 3 would reveal that the grounds raised by the petitioner in the objection were not taken into consideration. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that respondent No. 3 while passing the orders dated 20.02.2014, 04.03.2014 and 27.03.2014 has not considered the objection raised by the petitioner, all these orders are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 3 to pass order(s) afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the interested parties including the petitioner. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation if so advised. Respondent No. 3 is 5 directed to consider the objection as well as representation, if any, made by the petitioner, in an objective manner. The entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 3 within a period of 150 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s) / direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti