Disposed¶44

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2026WPC/1524/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nazul land allotment; cooperative housing society; Rule 5 Chhattisgarh Nazul Land Transfer Rules 1956; Cooperative Societies Act 1960; Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti; Durg; Rajnandgaon; representation to Collector and Nazul Officer; decision within six months; writ petitions disposed of; no opinion on merits; WPC No. 1524 of 2016; WPC No. 2999 of 2016; 2026:CGHC:2720; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the petitioners to make representations before the concerned Collector and Nazul Officer, and to those authorities to consider and decide the representations in an objective manner within six months of receipt; no opinion expressed on the merits. ¶44

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner societies are entitled to allotment of six acres (WPC No. 1524 of 2016) and ten acres (WPC No. 2999 of 2016) of vacant land in accordance with Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Nazul Land Transfer Rules, 1956. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The Court made clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are directed to make representations before the concerned Collector and Nazul Officer.

¶41

Key takeaways

The concerned Collector and Nazul Officer are directed to consider and decide the representations made by the petitioners in an objective manner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representations.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Two cooperative housing societies of Durg and Rajnandgaon, registered in 2008 under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 for members of the weaker and backward sections, sought directions for allotment of six and ten acres of vacant Nazul land under Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Nazul Land Transfer Rules, 1956. The Durg society had been allotted only 2 acres by the Nazul Officer, while the application of the Rajnandgaon society remained undecided. Confining itself to the limited prayer of counsel and expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court disposed of both writ petitions, directing the petitioners to make representations before the concerned Collector and Nazul Officer and directing those authorities to consider and decide the representations in an objective manner within six months of receipt.

2026:CGHC:2720

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1524 of 2016

¶6

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Shankar Nagar, Durg, Through Its Vice President, Smt. Shalita Chaure, W/o Ramesh Chaure Aged 52 Years, Shankar Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - The Collector, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The Nazul Officer, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - The Tehsildar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

With

¶16

WPC No. 2999 of 2016

¶17

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Soceity Samity Maryadit Rajnandgaon, Through Its President, Santosh Borkar, S/o Bhimrao Borkar Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Rahul Nagar, Lakholi, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

--- Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

¶22

2 - The Commissioner, Revenue Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶23

3 - The Collector, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶24

4 - The Nazul Officer, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

5 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

6 - The Tahsildar, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶27

--- Respondent(s)

¶28

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shreejita Kesharwani, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate

¶29

For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶30

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶31

Order on Board

¶32

16/01/2026

¶33

1. WPC/1524/2016 has been preferred by Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Shankar Nagar, Durg, whereas WPC/2999/2016 has been preferred by Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Rajnandgaon.

¶34

2. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have sought directions to the respondent authorities to consider their claim for allotment of six acres and ten acres of vacant land, in accordance with Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Nazul Land Transfer Rules, 1956. The petitioners have pleaded that the societies were registered under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The object of the societies is to obtain land under the Government scheme for construction of colonies. The members of the societies are persons belonging to the weaker and backward sections and are financially weak and unable to purchase plots in the open market. The societies were registered sometime in the year 2008, and immediately thereafter, applications were moved

¶35

¶36

for allotment of land for construction of colonies for the members of the societies.

¶37

3. Initially, in WPC/1524/2016, the Nazul Officer, Durg, allotted a plot admeasuring 2 acres. In WPC/2999/2016, till date, no decision has been taken.

¶38

4. Ms. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Nazul land is available with the Nazul Officer. She would further submit that according to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1956, the petitioners are entitled to get land allotted. She would also submit that despite availability of Nazul land, in WPC/1524/2016, only 2 acres of land has been allotted. She would submit that it is not possible for the petitioners to construct houses for its members on such a small area. She would further submit that in WPC/2999/2016, the application moved by the society has not been decided yet; thus, she would pray that the petitioners may be permitted to make representations before the Collector / Respondent No. 3 and the Nazul Officer of the respective district in turn they may be directed to consider the representations in an objective manner strictly in accordance with law.

¶39

5. On the other hand, Ms. Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submit that the Nazul Officer after due consideration of application & provisions of law, allotted two acre of land to one of the societies. She would submit that all available Nazul land can not be allotted to the petitioner societies; thus, she would submit that these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶40

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶41

7. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Ms. Kesharwani, the petitioners are directed to make representations before the

¶42

¶43

concerned Collector and Nazul Officer and in turn, the said authorities are directed to consider and decide the representations so made by the petitioners in an objective manner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representations.

¶44

8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), these writ petitions are hereby disposed of .

¶45

9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Nadim

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Vs Rajendra Kumar Sinha

Badrika Vs Pramod Kumar

Ram Chandra Sahu Vs Smt. Maya Devi

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Duleshwari Bai

Priyanshu Kumari (Minor) Vs Dhirendra Singh

Mahendra Bhoi Vs Hiralal Chauhan