1 2025:CGHC:2020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1427 of 2014 Devichand Shrishrimal S/o Lt Shri Maniklal Shrishrimal Aged About 67 Years R/o 4 Banyan Tree Enclave, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Secretary, Ministry Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawna, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh 2. The Commissioner Raipur Division, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Collector Nazul Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Nazul Officer, Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 13/01/2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application was moved by the petitioner for the grant of lease for running a press according to a scheme floated by the State Government. He further submits that pursuant to the application, the lease agreement was entered into between the State Government and the petitioner on 08.02.2008 and the premium amount was assessed to the tune of Rs. 32,43,328/- along with an additional sum of Rs. 2,43,250/-. He contends that the petitioner paid the amount but the Collector (Nazul), 2 Raipur vide order dated 30.10.2010 re-assessed the amount of premium to the tune of Rs. 1,29,97,160/-. He further contends that prior to the re-assessment of the premium amount; no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. He argues that when the amount of premium was calculated by the authority concerned on 08.02.2008, there was no occasion for the respondent authority to re-assess it, thus, he prays to quash the order dated 30.10.2010. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the application was moved by the petitioner for the grant of lease in the year 1994. He contends that as the matter remained pending for a considerable period and the lease agreement was entered into between the parties in 2008, the petitioner has been held liable to pay interest on the amount of premium as per the applicable rules, thus the order dated 30.10.2010 does not suffer from any illegality. He prays that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 4) A perusal of the lease agreement entered into between the State Government and the petitioner dated 08.02.2008 reveals that the amount of premium and additional amount were assessed to the tune of Rs. 32,43,328/- and Rs. 2,43,250/-, respectively. After two years, without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Collector (Nazul), Raipur re-assessed the amount of premium and interest part was included and it was enhanced to Rs. 1,29,97,160/-. 5) As no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner before modifying the amount of premium of lease agreement dated 3 08.02.2008, in the opinion of this Court, the authority concerned committed an error of law, therefore, the order dated 30.10.2010 is hereby quashed. The Collector (Nazul), Raipur is directed to re-assess the amount of premium after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6) With the aforesaid observation(s) & direction(s), the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya