KANUJ KHANNA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the registered owner of the land bearing Kh. No. 569/2, 570/2 measuring 0.405 hectares, situated at Village-Nakti, District-Raipur, on which, they have constructed a farm house for which permission was obtained from Gram Panchayat Nakti, District-Raipur. The petitioners were not aware that the permission was also required to be obtained from the Town and Country Planning Department, however, they have raised construction in accordance with the map approved by the Panchayat. On 20/6/2019, a notice was issued by the respondent No. 7 under Sec. 37 of the C.G. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (In short "'the Adhiniyam, 1973"). The petitioner then filed an application under Sec. 37 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 on 24/7/2019 praying for permission to retain the construction on the land in question. The Additional Director, respondent No. 8 has responded by memo dtd. 23/3/2022 (Annexure P-1) mentioning that the construction of the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions and standards of Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Vikas Yojana, 2031 and the permission for retaining was denied. Subsequent to which, the notice has been issued for demolition of the construction vide Annexure P-2.

(2.) It is submitted that Sec. 37 (3) authorizes the Director to decide the application under Sec. 37 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and Sec. 2 (h) of the Adhiniyam defines Director, which means director of Town and Country Planning appointed under this Adhiniyam only. This definition does not include the Additional Director or any other officers subordinate to him. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Special Development Area, Chitrakut v. Pooranlal S/o. Mahipal, reported in in which it was held that the definition of the Director is not inclusive and it does not include the other persons, who have been appointed to assist him. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed a fresh application under Sec. 37 (3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 on 5/4/2022. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned order and notice be quashed and the respondents be directed to consider on the application of the petitioners afresh.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents No. 4, 5 and 7 opposes the submission. It is submitted that the petitioners had filed their application on 24/7/2019 mentioning that the construction has been made for the purpose of maintaining of nursery, which is an incorrect statement. The fresh application dtd. 5/4/2022 mentions that the construction has been made for farming purpose. The photographs submitted by the petitioners demonstrate otherwise. It is submitted that the land belonging to the petitioners is a part of development plan of NRDA and therefore, the construction of farm house etc. are not permitted in the plan area. Accordingly, the reasons have been assigned in the correspondence dtd. 23/3/2022 (Annexure P-1), therefore, it is on the basis of the order passed, the notice Annexure P-2 has been issued.