Mohd. Rizwan vs State of M.P. and Others

The petitioner has sought following reliefs :

(i) This Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to take suitable action against the respondent no. 4 & 5 on the basis of recommendation made by the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report (Annexure P/4).

(ii) This Hon''ble Court may be kindly pleased to restrain the respondent no. 5 from constructing any residential duplexes and mall on the land in question.

(iii) This Hon''ble Court may be kindly pleased to restrain the respondent no. 5 from selling the constructed residential duplexes in open market.

(iv) This Hon''ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondents from creating any third party interest on the land in question.

(v) This Hon''ble Court may further pleased to declare all the alienation of the plots made by respondent no. 5 in respect of the land of the respondent no. 4 society bearing Khasara No. 7/1/2, 7/1/4 situated at Bavadiyakala (E/8 Extension, near Gulmohar Colony, in front of Canal) Bhopal, as null and void.

(vi) This Hon''ble Court may further pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to take appropriate legal action against the erring responsible officers of the State Government who have failed to discharge their duties.

(vii) Any other relief which this Hon''ble Court deems fit.

The case in short, of petitioner, is that respondent no. 4 purchased certain lands on concessional rate from private persons. The sale deed was executed on payment of lower rate of stamp duty, but the respondent no. 4 sold the land to respondent no. 5, who is a builder, while the entire purpose of purchase of land by respondent no. 4 was for providing residential plots to its members. It is submitted that on the complaint of petitioner, the matter was enquired into by the Inspector of Cooperative, who submitted his report Annexure P-4 to the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative, Bhopal on 30.10.2009, but thereafter no action has been taken on the aforesaid report. It is submitted that respondent no. 2 be directed to decide the matter expeditiously.

Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Dy. A.G., submitted that this is an old matter and he is not aware whether any action has been taken on the report Annexure P-4, but he has no objection if respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the matter expeditiously.

In view of aforesaid, we finally dispose of this petition with following directions :

Petitioner to move an application to respondent no. 2 along with a copy of this petition and order passed by this Court today.

The respondent no. 2 on filing of such an application shall look into the matter and if the matter has not been decided till date or is pending before respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 2 shall consider and decide the matter expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of six months from the date of filing of aforesaid, after extending due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

No order as to costs.

C.C., as per rules.