Manish Pujari vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Heard Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Choubey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State and Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

The petitioner has filed this present petition praying for following relief:-

Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner is aggrieved by the Development Permission dated 09.10.2000 issued by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning, Raipur, in respect of lands bearing Khasra Nos. 271/3, 271/5 and 271/6 situated at Village Tikrapara, Raipur. The petitioner claims that Khasra No. 271/3, admeasuring approximately 4,83,515 sq. ft., was recorded in the name of Shyamkumari Pujari, who died on 04.12.1996, and that the petitioner and private respondents are her legal heirs. According to the petitioner, neither he nor his predecessor, Late Dr. Mahendra Prakash Pujari, had consented to or applied for development permission in respect of the said land. It is alleged that Laxmi Pujari and Durga Pujari obtained the aforesaid Development Permission despite allegedly not being the exclusive owners of all the lands covered by the approved layout, particularly Khasra No. 271/3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a statutory petition under Section 74 of the Chhattisgarh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973, before the Special Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, along with an application for condonation of delay on 20.05.2026. The grievance of the petitioner is that the statutory petition and the application for condonation of delay have remained pending and have not yet been considered or decided by the competent authority. It is further alleged that the respondent No.2 has not opened the order-sheet or fixed any date of hearing. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the statutory petition dated 20.05.2026, along with the application for condonation of delay, expeditiously and in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application under Section 74 of the C.G. Town and Country Planning Act, 1973, before respondent No.2/Special Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, Government of C.G., Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur on 20.05.2026, however, till date it has not been decided. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the statutory petition, which, along with the statutory petition (Annexure P/3), is pending consideration before the competent appellate authority. Despite the same, no effective progress has been made, as the respondent No.2 has not even issued notice to the opposite party and has only called for a report from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Raipur, vide letter dated 29.05.2026 (Annexure P/4). The statutory proceedings pertain to the validity and legality of Development Permission No. 8519/P.L.131/1/Nagrani/2000/Raipur dated 09.10.2000 (Annexure P/1), concerning Khasra Nos. 271/3, 271/5 and 271/6 situated at Village Tikrapara, Raipur. The continued pendency of the proceedings defeats the purpose of the statutory remedy and causes prejudice to the petitioner. He also submits that the petitioner seeks only a limited relief for expeditious consideration and disposal of the statutory petition along with the application for condonation of delay, in accordance with law, without seeking any adjudication on merits by this Hon'ble Court. The continued inaction and failure of the respondent authorities to exercise jurisdiction vested in them, or their action in excess of jurisdiction, warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The present writ petition has, therefore, been filed bona fide to secure an effective and timely decision on the statutory remedy already invoked by the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, though no return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6.

Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner with regard to the application filed under Section 74 of the C.G. Town and Country Planning Act, 1973, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the said application in accordance with law, after giving prior notice to all the affected persons, including respondent No. 6, and thereafter to decide the matter. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion either on the merits of the case or on the maintainability of the application. The authorities concerned shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order with regard to the maintainability as well as the merits of the case, strictly in accordance with law.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The respondents who have approached this Court in advance without filing Vakalatnama are also granted liberty to approach the authorities concerned.

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.