Chhattisgarh Housing Board Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary , Revenue Department , Mahanadi Mantralaya , Naya Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Competent Authority Under The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act 1976 Collectorate, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Collector Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Ashok Koushal S/o Shri Jagat Pal Singh Koushal Aged About 46 Years R/o Hirapur , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Dulari Koushal D/o Shri Jagat Pal Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Hirapur , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner	: Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate.
For State/Res	: Shri Ashutosh Shukla, PL.
For Respondent No.4 &5	: Shri Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

17/04/2026

¶20

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the following reliefs:-

¶21

10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for

¶22

the entire records pertaining to the case in case no.793 A/90

¶23

C(1) years 78-79, Raipur.

¶24

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue

¶25

an appropriate writ/direction/order and quash/ set aside the

¶26

2

¶27

order dated 29.12.2017 (Though the order impugned does not bear any date yet the memorandum dated 03.01.2018 would show that the impugned order is passed on 29.12.2017) passed by competent authority, respondent no.2, in case no.793 A/90 C(1) years 78-79, ANNEXURE P/1.

¶28

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

¶29

Briefly stated case of the petitioner is the Chhattisgarh Housing Board is enacted

¶30

and established under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972, an act to provide for the incorporation and regulation of housing Board in the state of Chhattisgarh for the purposes of taking measures to deal with and satisfying the need of housing accommodation and to undertake development scheme and for matter connected therewith. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act, 1976) was enacted to provide for imposition of a ceiling on a vacant land in urban agglomeration for acquisition of such land in excess of ceiling limit, to regulate the construction of building on such land and for matter connected therewith. The Act, 1976 prescribed the maximum ceiling limit to which the land can be retained by owner and determination of surplus land and transfer thereof in favor of the state after drawing the final statement under section 9 of the Act, 1976 and state would require the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit under section 10 of the Act, 1976 and the lands will be vested absolutely free from all encumbrances to the State Government. The petitioner in order to acquire the surplus lands, a proceeding under the Act, 1976 was initiated to acquire the lands belonging to Rajni and Om prakash, who were allegedly ancestors of respondent no 4 & 5, situated at village- Jarwai, Hirapur, p.h. no 103, tehsil &

¶31

3

¶32

Distt. Raipur admeasuring khasra no. 726 rakba 0.106 hectare (1812 square meter). After completion of the various proceedings, on 07.01.1983, a notification under section 10 (1) of The Act, 1976 and on 26.08.1983, a notification under section 10(3) of The Act, 1976 was published. The petitioner demanded lands from respondent no.2 for construction of houses in P.H.no. 103 village- JarwaiHirapur, Raipur. The Housing Board deposited the amount of compensation on 31.12.1988. On 25.08.1989, the respondent no.2 handed over the possession of various lands including the land admeasuring khasara no. 726 rakaba 0.106 hectare (1812 square meter) situated at village- Jarwai-hirapur, P.h.no.103. The petitioner constructed the houses over the lands and sold it to the allottees. The colony was developed and various development works have already been done in the colony. Respondent no.4 & 5 after 30 years of acquisition of lands under Act, 1976 moved an application under section 3 of The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 before the respondent no.2. It is pertinent to mention here at this juncture that the respondent no.4 & 5 without impleading the Chhattisgarh Housing Board as party respondent and the respondent no.2 also without issuing any notice to the Chhattisgarh Housing Board initiated a proceeding to release/ divest the land to respondent no.4 & 5 though the Housing Board was necessary party and is in lawful possession of the subject lands. Respondent no.2 asked the patwari to submit a report with regard to the land. The patwari submitted the report stating that the lands are recorded in the name of the state as a ceiling land and there is no land like khasara no. 726/1 however the respondent no. 4 & 5 indicated about the land saying this is the land. The respondent no.2 though holding that the lands was acquired under Act, 1976 as notification under section 10(3) of Act, 1976 was published and it is

¶33

4

¶34

vested into the State Government free from all encumbrances yet some portions of the lands are vacant. It will not be out of place to mention here at this juncture that the respondent no. 2 without giving any opportunity to petitioner, passed an order to revert/divest the land to the respondent no.4 & 5 vide order dated 29.12.2017. Though the order impugned does not bear any date, however, the memo dated 03.01.2018 would show that the impugned order is passed on 29.12.2017. Hence this Petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order has been passed on an application preferred by Respondent Nos.4 & 5 without hearing petitioner’s side and causing notice to the petitioner. He submits that in the year 1983, the land in question was earlier vested under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 with the State Government which gave the possession of the land on 25.08.89 to the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, as that point of time, State of Madhya Pradesh was not bifurcated. Upon receipt of the said land, the Boardpetitioner constructed houses on the said land. Subsequently, the Act of 1976 was repealed as on 18.03.1999 and since it was repealed, Respondent Nos.4 & 5 filed an application under Section 3 (2) Urban Ceiling Repeal Act, 1999 before the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling, Raipur to release their land in view of the fact that the Act of 1976 has been repealed. However, the competent authority without causing notice to the petitioner and in absence of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order dated 29.12.2017 (the said date is evident from Annexure P/7) stating that possession of the land was not taken by the State Government nor compensation has been granted to the original land owner, as such, the entire action of vesting is not in accordance with law and the land in question was accordingly directed to be

¶36

5

¶37

reverted to the Respondent Nos.4 & 5.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that opportunity of hearing was required to be given in this case as the land in question was given by the State Government to the MP Housing Board, at present Chhattisgarh Housing Board and possession certificate to that effect was issued way back on 25.08.89 (Annexure P/4) by Assistant Sub-Officer under Urban Land Ceiling which was received by Assistant Engineer, MP Housing Board, Sub Division Gudhiyari Raipur MP.

¶39

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that the petitioner has been granted opportunity of hearing and as such, the impugned order has rightly been passed.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition.

¶41

From the perusal of the impugned order though it has been submitted by counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5 that petitioner has been granted opportunity of hearing however, he could not demonstrate the same and therefore, it appears that the side of the petitioner CG Housing Board was not heard before passing the said order which was also passed in the teeth of the possession certificate dated 25.8.89 (Annexure P/4) by which the possession of the land in question bearing Khasra No.726 rakba 1812 sq. meter was given to the MP Housing Board (now the petitioner) and therefore, the petitioner was necessary party to be heard before passing of the impugned order.

¶42

Considering the totality of the case and further considering the fact after taking possession of the land in question, the Housing Board constructed the houses on the most part of land and some area is lying vacant, and particularly the fact

¶43

6

¶44

that the Housing Board-petitioner has not been heard before passing of impugned order dated 29.12.2017 by the Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling Raipur, the impugned order is unsustainable and violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶45

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2017 (Annexure P/1) is quashed/set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling, Raipur to consider and pass order afresh. The Competent Authority is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and hear the matter afresh and after taking preliminary evidence as is required under the law. Appropriate order be passed in this respect by the competent authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties i.e. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the petitioner.

¶46

With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶47

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the Competent Authority shall pass order on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶50

Avinash

Chhattisgarh Housing Board v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhattisgarh Housing Board 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

Hitesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanhaiya Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shree Nakoda Ispat Limited Vs Union of India

Smt. Vidya P. Tandy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeshwari Bai Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cholamandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Champa Bai Shriwas