Vijay Kumar Bholani Vs the Commissioner

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:27306

NAFR

AVINASH SHARMA

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.03 18:20:27 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 2807 of 2026

¶8

1 - Vijay Kumar Bholani S/o Late Paras Ram Bholani, Aged About 47 Years R/o In Front Of Diwan Talab, Amapara, Kanker, Distt. North Baster, Kanker (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - The Commissioner Baster, Division - Baster, District- Jagdalpur At Baster (C.G.)

¶12

2 - The Collector, Kanker, District- North Baster, Kanker (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Kanker, District- North Baster, Kanker (C.G.)

¶14

4 - The Tahsildar, Kanker, District- North Baster, Kanker (C.G.)

¶15

5 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Municipalities Kanker, District- North Baster, Kanker (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA.

¶17

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

¶18

02/07/2026

¶19

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by Respondent No.1 in Appeal No. 202102950100046/A-68/20-21 (Vijay Kumar Bholani v. State) , whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the sole ground

¶20

2

¶21

that the Government Circular dated 23.07.2024 had been cancelled. The petitioner has also assailed the orders dated 27.06.2020 and 18.11.2020 , whereby his application for grant of lease and the first appellate order respectively were rejected.

¶22

The petitioner is a permanent resident of In Front of Diwan Talab, Amapara, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh). The record reveals that the petitioner had submitted an application before Respondent No.4 under the Government Instructions dated 11.09.2019 seeking grant of lease in respect of Sheet No.10A, Plot No.4/1, admeasuring 40 square metres. The petitioner specifically pleaded that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed under Clause 5 of the Government Instructions and expressed his willingness to deposit the premium and other charges as per the prescribed guidelines. Pursuant to the application, the competent authority initiated the prescribed enquiry by calling for reports from the Revenue Inspector and Patwari and by issuing a public notice inviting objections from the concerned departments and the general public. Respondent No.5 filed objections opposing the petitioner's claim. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the District Level Committee, which, in its meeting held on 27.06.2020, recommended rejection of the petitioner's application. Acting upon the recommendation, the Collector, North Bastar, Kanker rejected the petitioner's claim. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before Respondent No.3. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 18.11.2020. The petitioner thereafter preferred a second appeal before Respondent No.1. The appellate record further discloses that notices were issued to the respondents on 12.03.2021. Although several opportunities were granted, no

¶23

3

¶24

reply was filed by the respondents. The matter was listed for hearing on 14.10.2022 and thereafter for final arguments on 18.11.2022. However, the appeal remained pending without adjudication for a considerable period. Compelled by the prolonged pendency of the appeal, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by filing WPC No.4633 of 2025, wherein this Hon'ble Court directed the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal expeditiously. Pursuant thereto, the appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, dismissing the appeal solely on the ground that the Government Circular dated 23.07.2024 had been withdrawn.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to circular dated 11.09.2019 petitioner moved an application before the competent authority for allotment/settlement of land on which he was in possession as an encroacher. However, the same came to be rejected on the ground that the said circular has been cancelled by way of circular dated 23.07.2024 issued by the State Government. He submits that he had moved an application for settlement when the circular dated 11.09.2019 was in existence, as such, petitioner deserves the benefit of the said circular.

¶26

Learned State counsel submits that the circular dated 11.09.2019 has been cancelled by way of circular dated 23.07.2024, as such, petitioner cannot be given benefit of circular dated 11.09.2019.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petitioner carefully.

¶28

From the record, it is evident the application moved by the petitioner for allotment of land on the basis of circular dated 11.09.2019 has been rejected by the Collector vide order dated 27.06.2020, thereafter, the petitioner

¶29

4

¶30

approached SDO (Revenue) Kanker who rejected the claim of the petitioner on account of non-jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner moved before Commissioner Baster Division who also rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 06.01.2026.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the entire claim of the petitioner is founded upon the Circular dated 11.09.2019, under which the petitioner asserts entitlement to allotment of the subject land. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, the aforesaid Circular dated 11.09.2019 has been withdrawn/cancelled by the State Government vide Circular dated 23.07.2024. Consequently, the very basis of the petitioner's claim no longer survives.

¶32

In the absence of the statutory or executive foundation on which the petitioner seeks relief, this Court finds that no enforceable right subsists in favour of the petitioner. Once the Circular forming the basis of the petitioner's claim has ceased to exist, no direction can be issued by this Court for consideration or grant of the relief prayed for.

¶33

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge

¶36

Avinash

Vijay Kumar Bholani v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Bholani v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitra Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khoman Singh Vs Dhansai

Adimjati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Gotia, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Machhuva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Beladula Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Khanna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Biselal Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh