Tapan Vishwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶3

2026:CGHC:15592

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2695 of 2021

¶7

1 - Tapan Vishwas S/o Late Shri Haripad Vishwas, Aged About 33 Years R/o Subhas Nagar, Beladula, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Nazul Officer, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - The Revenue Inspector (Nazul) Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2

¶15

5 - Shri Sai Group, Partner Kshirish Kumar Dansena, Chakardhar Nagar, Behind Civil Court, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. ManojKumar Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 4	: Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. AnuragSingh, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 5	: Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate.

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

06/04/2026

¶21

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶22

reliefs:-

¶23

“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases.

¶24

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned letter/order dated 06.02.2021 Ann.P/1) and auction notice dated 14.1.2021 (Ann.P/8) issued by the Respondent NO.4. with respect to sale of subject land bearing Khasra 292/2 area 1500 Sq.fit. and Khasra No.290/1 ara 744 square fit.

¶25

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent authority to reconsider and decided the pending applications submitted by the petitioner as

¶26

per Government circular dated 11.09.2019 and

¶27

3

¶28

26.10.2019 (Ann.P/2) of the bearing Khasra 292/2 area 1000 Nazul Sq.fit. bearing land Khasra No.290/1 ara 744 square fit.

¶29

10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed.

¶30

10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.”

¶31

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a resident of Subhash Nagar, Beladula, Tahsil and District Raigarh, and the subject Nazul land bearing Khasra No. 290/1 admeasuring 4.20 acres, situated within the municipal limits of Village Beladula, District Raigarh, is open government Nazul land; further, land bearing Khasra No. 290/2 admeasuring 50,000 square feet had earlier been allotted to the Department of Rehabilitation, Government of Chhattisgarh, for construction of quarters, and the petitioner’s grandmother, Late Mukul Rani, was allotted House No. 1 admeasuring 1,000 square feet under the rehabilitation policy vide order dated 23.05.1982; that the State Government issued circulars dated 11.09.2019 and 26.10.2019 laying down guidelines for allotment of permanent lease of government land in urban areas, wherein Clause 1.4 provides that land exceeding 7,500 square feet shall be allotted on lease by the State Government for a period of 30 years, and the subsequent notification dated 26.10.2019 further clarified the earlier circular by introducing

¶32

4

¶33

additional provisions, including grant of permanent lease conferring ownership rights upon occupants, and under Clause 2.3, any person seeking ownership is required to deposit an amount equivalent to 102% of the market value, upon which permanent lease is granted and the person attains the status of landowner; that in accordance with the said guidelines, the petitioner submitted an application on 12.10.2020 before the respondent authorities seeking allotment of Nazul land bearing Khasra No. 290/2 admeasuring 1,500 square feet, stating that he has been in long-standing possession thereof, is willing to pay the requisite market rate, and that the earlier allotted 1,000 square feet to his grandmother has become dilapidated, necessitating reconstruction over an extended area of 1,500 square feet; that upon receipt of the application, the Nazul Officer, Raigarh registered a case, invited objections, and directed the Revenue Inspector (Nazul) to submit a report, fixing the matter for hearing on 13.11.2020, however, prior thereto, on 27.10.2020, a spot inspection report and panchnama were obtained, which recorded that the petitioner was in possession of an additional 1,793 square feet of government land, out of which construction existed over 960 square feet and new construction over 1,635 square feet, and on the basis of the said report, the petitioner’s application was rejected on 27.10.2020, with intimation communicated on 06.02.2021; that thereafter, the respondent authorities issued an auction notice in the newspaper, and upon learning of the same,

¶34

5

¶35

the petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No. 187/2021 before this Hon’ble Court challenging the auction notice dated 14.01.2021, whereupon this Hon’ble Court, by order dated 14.01.2021, granted interim protection directing that the auction shall not be finalized and the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed till the next date of hearing; that despite the said order, on 14.01.2021 itself, the respondent authorities issued a demand letter to Respondent No. 5, being the highest bidder in respect of Nazul Plot No. 290/1 admeasuring 744 square feet, directing deposit of 10% of the bid amount of Rs. 65,51,000/- and the balance within 30 days; that the petitioner also submitted objections on 16.01.2021 before the respondent authorities reiterating his pending application for lease; that subsequently, in compliance with the interim order, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.01.2021 requesting that the auction proceedings be halted and his possession be protected, however, without considering the order of this Hon’ble Court, the respondents rejected his application and communicated the same on 06.02.2021; and therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s application, proceeding with the auction, and issuing the demand letter dated 14.01.2021 in respect of the subject land is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law, hence the present petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the petitioner’s claim for grant

¶37

6

¶38

of lease over the subject Nazul land and in proceeding with the auction thereof is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the applicable law and government policy. It is contended that the State Government, by circular dated 11.09.2019 and subsequent clarificatory notification dated 26.10.2019, has laid down comprehensive guidelines for the grant of permanent lease of government land situated in urban areas, including provisions enabling occupants to obtain ownership rights upon payment of the prescribed amount equivalent to 102% of the market value. In accordance with these guidelines, the petitioner, being in possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 290/2 admeasuring 1500 square feet situated at village Beladula, District Raigarh, submitted an application dated 12.10.2020 expressing his willingness to pay the requisite amount and seeking allotment of lease. However, during the pendency of the said application, respondent No. 4 illegally issued an auction notice dated 11.12.2020 and proceeded to auction the land in favour of respondent No. 5, in clear violation of the government circulars. It is further submitted that pursuant to proceedings before the Nazul Officer, a spot inspection report confirmed the petitioner’s possession over the subject land and construction thereon, yet the petitioner’s application was rejected on the erroneous ground of lack of possession. The petitioner has consistently expressed readiness to comply with all financial obligations under the policy and has also approached this Hon’ble Court, wherein interim

¶39

7

¶40

protection was granted vide order dated 14.01.2021, safeguarding his possession; despite this, respondent No. 5 issued a demand notice on the same date, which is ex facie illegal and in disregard of the Court’s order. The petitioner thereafter submitted a fresh application dated 22.01.2021 in compliance with the Court’s directions, but the respondent authorities failed to consider the same in accordance with the governing rules and circulars, particularly when the policy mandates initiation of lease proceedings upon receipt of such application. It is thus submitted that the impugned rejection order dated 06.02.2021 and the auction notices dated 11.12.2020 and 14.01.2021 are unsustainable in law, having been issued on incorrect and arbitrary grounds, and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it is prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to reconsider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of lease strictly in accordance with the applicable government guidelines and to set aside the auction proceedings and consequential demand notice issued in favour of respondent No. 5.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as respondents No. 4 & 5 submits that the question of grant of Bhumiswami rights does not arise in the present case, inasmuch as the petitioner has never been granted any patta or lease in respect of the land in question, and therefore, cannot claim any such right under the applicable provisions of law.

¶42

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶43

8

¶44

material available on record.

¶45

Since, according to the petitioner, he has been in long-standing possession of the land in question, and further considering the fact that he has already submitted an application seeking settlement of the said land in his favour, which is still pending and has not yet been decided by the competent authorities, it is directed that the concerned respondent authorities, particularly the Collector, Raigarh, shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law, upon the petitioner approaching the said authority and submitting an appropriate application for the grant of patta/lease in respect of the land in question, which he claims to have been possessing for a considerable period of time.

¶46

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner may approach before the concerned Collector by submitting a fresh application/representation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶50

Raghu Jat

Tapan Vishwas v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Vishwas 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rampukar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Brijesh Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajkumari Baiga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tapan Biswas Vs State of C.G.

Chetan Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh