1 2025:CGHC:5353 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1558 of 2024 1 - Manoj Rai S/o Shri Laxmi Prasad Rai, Aged About 58 Years R/o H- 2/127 Narmada Nagar, District Bilaspur (Cg) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Shiva Gendle S/o T.R. Gendle Aged About 44 Years R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Near Ayappa Mandir, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri R.S. Marhas, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent no. 2 : Shri Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent no. 3 : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent to allot the land, which is adjacent to the SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.31 16:42:35 +0530 2 house of the petitioner i.e. H-2/127 admeasuring 1480 sq.ft. pursuant to the resolution of passed by the MIC (Mayor-in-Council). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the MIC of Corporation has resolved vide its resolution dated 21.06.2019 and 23.08.2019 (Annexure P/4) to allot extra lands which are adjacent to extra land owner. He further submits that extra lands which are adjacent to land owner has been allotted to several similarly situated persons, which has been annexed as (Annexure P/12). He also submits that in spite of the said allotment to other persons and though the petitioner is entitled for extra land adjacent to the land of the petitioner i.e. 1480 Square feet, but the respondent Corporation is not allotting the same to the petitioner. Learned counsel would refer to the provision of Rule 27 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Niyam ,1975 (for short, ‘the Rules 1975’). 3. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 09.01.2025 there was a direction to the Commissioner to file AfÏdavit, whether the petitioner is entitled for adjacent plot located to the plot owned by him pursuance to the Rules 1975 and in light of the circular dated 28.10.2002. 4. In compliance of the said order, the respondent has filed an afÏdavit but the query raised by the Court has not been answered in detail. However, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation would submit that the petitioner is not entitled for the extra adjacent plot, because the extra plot is of larger size that cannot be allotted. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the documents. 6. For adjudication of the present petition, it would be apt to quote Rule 27 of the Rules, 1975, which reads thus : 3 “27. Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 24 to 26, the Authority may dispose of any land by sale without auction or exchange in the following cases:- a. Where the land is to be transferred to the Government of India or the State Government. b. where the plot is to be transferred is adjacent to a largest plot held previously be a person who has asked for such adjoining plot. c. Where consequential to an agreement for abandonment a piece of land is to sold to person whose property is to be abandoned to fit the property in the Authority layout. d. Where the Authority land is to be exchanged with adjoining private or Government land for the purpose of a regular layout of plots or for adjustment of the boundaries of private property the acquisition of which is proposed to be abandoned.” 7. From perusal of Rule 27 it is quite vivid that the Authority may dispose of any land by sale without auction or exchange in a case where the plot is to be transferred is adjacent to the largest plot held previously by a person who has asked for such adjoining plot. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has applied for the allotment of the said plot since 17.09.1996 (Annexure P/1). 8. In view of the provision and the application submitted by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is entitled for the said allotment of extra plot. Even the petitioner is also entitled for the same as per the MIC resolution dated 21.06.2019 and 23.08.2019 (Annexure P/4). 9. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent Commissioner is directed to pass a detail order 4 about entitlement of petitioner to the extra land i.e. 1480 square feet which is adjacent to the petitioner’s existing plot H-2/127 in accordance with the provision prescribed under Rule 27 of the Rules 1975 read with the resolution passed by the MIC dated 21.06.2019 and 23.08.2019 (Annexure P/4). The said exercise be done to the extent of petitioner’s land within a period of 50 days from today. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib