RAJENDRA DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the allotment order dated 5-8-1994 (Annexure P-l) issued in favour of respondent No. 6 and the impugned order of advance possession dated 22-8-1994 (Annexure P-2J. It is further prayed that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be directed to issue allotment order with delivery of possession in respect of plot in dispute, in favour of the present petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner submits that he is the Secretary of Yug Chetna Publication, Raipur which is the Unit of Yug Dharma and applied for allotment of land (Annexure P-3) admeasuring 417138 sq. ft. situated at Block No. 9, plot No. 1 x 1 at Rajbandha Talab, Civil Station, Raipur. It is submitted that there was Press Complex categorized by the State Government and the Local Authority and various parts thereof have been allotted to different pressmen. It is submitted that on receipt of the application in the office of respondent No. 4-Collector, Raipur, no objection certificates were demanded and petitioner obtained No Objection Certificates dated 9-7-1990 and 16-7-1990 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) from the concerned authorities. It is further submitted that while petitioner's application was under process, respondent No. 6 made an application to the then Chief Minister for allotment of land for press complex vide letter dated 4-8-90 (Annexure P-10). Then the said letter was forwarded by Chief Minister's Secretariat. The matter was thereafter processed.

(3.) In para 5.8 of the writ petition, it is stated "that the petitioner was absolutely innocent and ignorant about the foul play at the hands of the respondent ignited by respondent No. 6 and generated through/by the then Chief Minister, on his pursuit to claim the allotment of the land for which he had lawfully applied on the basis of his entitlement flowing from the long established publication of the Yugdharma newspaper and when no response is flown from the end of respondent, the present petitioner started approaching respondent Nos. 1 to 5 independently demanding all the reasons for delay in the process of allotment in his favour. The petitioner submitted the latest reminder/application dated 26-2-1997 to respondent No. 5 vide Annexure P-14". Grounds urged by the petitioner arc that hostile discrimination has been adopted and the petitioner has been kept in darkness and that the allotment has been made illegally and contrary to law.