1 2025:CGHC:5463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 612 of 2025 1 - Ashok Kumar Sen S/o Rajman Sen Aged About 53 Years R/o Camp-2, Power House, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, PL For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner and may further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 3 to handover the possession of the Shop No. 13 (at present no. 49) to the petitioner and also to execute a registered lease deed in favour of the petitioner. 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner safeguarding his interest.” RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.01.31 16:56:27 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, the Plot No. 13 of the Sasta Market was allotted to Parvati Bai W/o Rajman Sen on lease. The lease was for a period of 30 years. The area of the land allotted was 2.5 X 2 meters = 5 meters. After death of Parvati Bai W/o Rajman Sen, the husband has given consent to run the said shop to the petitioner and also given his No Objection Certificate. Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation has taken a decision to shift the land allotees including the petitioner who was in possession of the land of which, lease deed was executed by the Respondent No. 3 and as per the list prepared by the Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation, Parvati Bai was proposed to be allotted the Plot No. 49 at the other portion of the land of Sasta Market. Since then, the proposed plot has not been allotted and the possession has not been given to the petitioner who came in possession of the plot allotted to Late Parvati Bai. 3. Petitioner submitted a representation before the Respondent No. 3 however, till date, no decision has been taken, and the said representation is still pending consideration, and hence, the Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation be directed to take decision on the representation and to allot the proposed plot as per the list prepared by the authorities to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that he may be granted short time to file reply. However, he submits that if the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation to take decision on the pending representation, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. If the representation is still pending consideration, it will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed along with the writ petition. 3 6. Petitioner has filed the lease deed executed in favour of Late Parvati Bai. The documents further shows that the name of Parvati Bai (mother of the petitioner) was mutated and the intimation is sent . The petitioner has sought permission to transfer the plot recorded in the name of her mother to the petitioner, upon which, the letter was written by the Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation that it is having no objection in transfer of the plot. Subsequently, the plot transfer deed was executed. 7. In the year 2019, the Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation took decision to shift the shopkeepers/plot owners to nearby place in the Sasta Market and accordingly, the list was prepared. The plot to be allotted to Late Parvati Bai, the earlier allottee of Plot No. 13 has been proposed to allot Plot No. 49. As stated by the counsel for the petitioner, till date, the Plot No. 49 was not given in possession to the petitioner who was in possession of Plot No. 13 pursuant to the transfer of the said plot by Late Parvati Bai. 8. Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts of the case, submission of counsel for the petitioner, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, this petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit afresh representation before the Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation and in the event, petitioner submits representation, the Respondent No. 3/Municipal Corporation shall consider and take decision on the representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the representation. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Sourabh/rahul