WPC/7597/2010 of VIRENDRA AGRAWAL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH and ORS. on 22 December 2010

ff-'i'T

s-ta^.^%Ib.S1

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

'7'$fi)^0f2010,

W.P. ^7) No.

PETITIONERAPPLICANT

:: /^Virendra Agrawal,S/o.lateShri Ram Narayan Agrawal,agedabout65R/o.years,Shri Ram Narayan Agrawal,agedabout65R/o.years,Vidya Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil85 District Bilaspur(C.G.),85 District Bilaspur(C.G.),

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh throughAdditionalCollector,BilaspurDistrict Bilaspur (C.G.)AdditionalCollector,BilaspurDistrict Bilaspur (C.G.)

RESPONDENTS ,:1)Non-applicantsNon-applicants 'Q<^>(%^^&° \/^^?"r> '-^ :2);BilaspurNazul Officer, (C.G.) Bilaspur, District/•^^s^/•^^s^/•"^\<^,,:3)Additional Collector, Bilaspur,^--~District Bilaspur (C.G.)

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

!s?p...^"

rf»

1StBKR®BroW::;:'";::l

mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURS.B: Hon'bleShriPrashantKumarMjshra Writ Petition fO No. 7597/2010

PETITIONERVirendra Agrawal

Versus

RESPONDENTS

State of Chhattisgarh and otiiers

ApDearance:ShriH.B.Agrawal,Senior Advocate withShriPankajAgrawal, counsel for the petitioner.Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State.

WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 22&227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIAORALORDER(22.12.2010)

The only relief claimed in tiie writ petition is for issuance ofdirection to the respondents to treat the petitioner's application forgrant[of][ No][ Objection][ Certificate](in[short][ NOC)][ by][ Ifae][ Nazul]Authorities as one for educational and consider the same purposewithin stipulated time.

(2) Leamed Senior Advocate appesring for the petitioner wouldsubmit that the petitioner holds a lease for residential purpose,however the land use of the lands covered under sheet No.37 ofBilaspur Nazul in Juna Bilaspur is for educational therefore purpose,his application was rejected. He would submit that the owner oftheadjoining plot, holding a similar lease has been granted NOC forconstruction of a building for education He would submit purpose.i1hat case ofthe petitioner and that ofadjoining land owner Mr. Sushil r^^

^'

ipjpra—t="Bs-s-^st.,4.i.^iSM^fiiws^aesii^[aiB'"!HnaBiBBi5«E—nB

Kumar Saluja S/o Late Chand Lal Saluja who has been granted NOCby the same authority i.e. respondents No.2 and 3, is identical,therefore petitioner is entitled for similar treatment under Article 14ofthe Constitution oflndia.

(3) In view ofthe above, it is directed that ifthe petitioner submitsfresh application for grant ofNOC for construetion ofa building foreducational purpose within a period of 15 days from today, fherespondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the same in accordance withlaw and keq}ing in view the NOC to the adjoining land grantedownernamely Sushil Kumar Saluja S/o Chand Lal Saluja.

The auAorities are also directed to ofthe as(4) dispose applicationearly as and within a of two months after possible preferably periodsubmission ofthe application. It is also observed that earlier rejectionof his application for grant of NOC shall not be an impediment inview ofthe permission granted to Ifae adjoining land owner.

(5) With this directioa, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

p,ashants^arMishra^.Judge

^^S^Slsss^s^s^iss^^^^Ss^sassisSssiSaimsss&^Si^wssissSiaii.sM:-'. ••••