1 2025:CGHC:44785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 923 of 2020 Pankaj Agrawal S/o Shri Late Omprakash Agrawal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Danipara, Raigarh P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh, District- Raigarh (CG) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Raipur (CG) 2 - The Collector, Raigarh District- Raigarh (CG) 3 - The Nazul Officer, Raigarh District- Raigarh (CG) 4 - The Municipal Corporation, Raigarh Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raigarh, District - Raigarh (CG) 5 - Prakash Rao Kumre S/o Shri Prem Singh Kumre, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Chamda Godown Raigarh, District- Raigarh (CG) 6 - Sudesh Kumar Lala S/o Horilal Aged About 44 Years R/o Tendu Dipa, Ward No. 38, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (CG) ---- Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner :Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 :Shri Ratan Pusty, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 :Shri Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 5 and 6 :None, though served. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.09.03 15:06:25 +0530 2 Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 02.09.2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 02.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, whereby, the land admeasuring 10’ x 10’ = 100 square feet of Nazul Land, bearing Khasra No.26/210 admeasuring 0.93 acre was allotted to respondent No. 5- Prakash Rao Kumre and the respondent No.6- Sudesh Kumar Lala, while referring to the order dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure P-8), passed in Contempt No.105/2017. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while inviting attention towards the order dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed in Contempt No.105/2017, submits that no direction as such, was issued therein, yet the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, has allotted the alleged piece of Nazul Land to them, irrespective of the fact that the claim of theirs’ as such, has already been refused by the Nazul officer, Raigarh vide its order dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure P-9) and which has attained its finality. It is, therefore, contended by Shri Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is apparently, contrary to the materials available on record and deserves to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4- Municipal Corporation, Raigarh has supported the order impugned dated 02.05.2019 as passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers annexed with this petition carefully. 5. From perusal of the record, it appears that the land bearing Khasra No.26/210 admeasuring 0.93 acre was a Nazul Land and was recorded as “Sadak” in Maintenance Khasra (forming part of Annexure P-3). For allotment of the alleged Nazul Land, the respondent No. 5- Prakash Rao Kumre and respondent No. 6- Sudesh Kumar Lala have, initially, filed a petition, being WPC No.2187/2015 before this Court, where, they have sought for the issuance of direction against the respondents to allot the small parcel of land for construction of their shops. After considering the said writ petition, a direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 03.02.2016 (Annexure P-7) to the Nazul officer, Raigarh to consider the application of the respondent No. 5- Prakash Rao Kumre and respondent No.6- Sudesh Kumar Lala (who were the petitioners therein) for allotment of land in accordance with government scheme and the existing rules and regulations. Relevant observation made therein at paragraph 7 reads as under :- “7. At this stage, this petition is finally disposed off with a direction to Nazul Officer, Raigarh to consider petitioners application for allotment of land in accordance with government scheme and existing rules and regulations with regard to allotment of nazul land. The decision should be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”. 6. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the Nazul officer, Raigarh has examined the application of the said respondents and, vide its order dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure P-9) has refused to allot the same, as 4 was claimed by them on the alleged Nazul Land, i.e., Khasra No.26/210. It is to be noted that despite the refusal of the claim, the said respondents (Prakash Rao Kumre and Sudesh Kumar Lala) have failed to question its authenticity before the appropriate forum and instead, a contempt petition, being Contempt No.105/2017, was filed by them and, this Court vide order dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure P-8) observed at para 3 that the legality and propriety of the alleged order dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure P-9) passed by the said Nazul officer, Raigarh, cannot be considered in the contempt matter and while disposing the said petition, observed further that it will be open for them to question the same in a separate petition, but, for the reasons best known to them, they failed to avail the same. In view of such an eventuality, the alleged order dated 28.04.2017 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Nazul officer, Raigarh, refusing their claim as such for allotment of Nazul Land has, thus, attained its finality by efflux of time, yet the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, while referring to the said Contempt petition has allotted the 10’ x 10’ = 100 square feet from the alleged Nazul Land, bearing Khasra No. 26/210 admeasuring 0.93 acre, vide its order impugned to the said respondents, though, no such observation was made therein. The entire action of the said authority allotting the alleged government Nazul Land as such, despite the refusal of their claim by the Nazul officer, Raigarh on 28.04.2017, is apparently, unknown to the law. The order impugned, therefore, cannot be held to be sustainable from stretch of any imagination. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed and, the order impugned dated 02.05.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner, Municipal 5 Corporation, Raigarh, allotting the alleged 10’ x 10’ = 100 square feet of land from the alleged Nazul Land, i.e., Khasra No.26/210 admeasuring 0.93 acre to the respondent No. 5-Prakash Rao Kumre and respondent No.6- Sudesh Kumar Lala, is quashed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita