W.P.No.14038/2011
Mohd. Rizwan State of M.P. & others
11.10.2011
Shri Akash Choudhary, counsel for petitioner.
Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy.A.G., for respondent nos.1 to 3 on
advance notice.
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
Extention, near Gulmohar Colony, infront 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
W.P.No.14038/2011
Mohd. Rizwan State of M.P. & others
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 :-
1. Petitioner to move an application to respondent no.2 along
with a copy of this petition and order passed by this Court today.
2. 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.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain)
JUDGE JUDGE
M
