1 2025:CGHC:30863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3308 of 2025 1 - Shri Sai Prasanna Builders, Through Its Partner Dayal Rajpal S/o B.J. Rajpal Aged About 64 Years Having Its Address At 1st Floor, Ravi Bhavan, Jaistambh Chwok Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Dayaldas Bherumal (H.U.F.) Through Its Kartadayal Rajpal S/o B.J. Rajpal Aged About 64 Years, Having Its Address At D- 274, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur Tehsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhava, Capitol Complex, Nawa Raipur (Atal Nagar) Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate Of Town And Country Planning Chhattisgarh Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (Also Known As Nrda) Paryavas Bhavan, North Block Naya Raipur Marg, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - General Manager (Planning ), Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikaran Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr.Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate and Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mrs. Upsana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent no. 3 & 4 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma 2 Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. By way of this petition the petitioners are seeking for following relief:- “a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling the relevant records from the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue direction to the respondent authorities to a lot the Part of plot no. C-68 or C-108 as per area to be alloted with respect to 42% of total area being acquired (i.e. 8618.40 sq. mtrs. And 8026.20 sq. mtrs, to DayaldasBherumal HUF adjacent to 8618.40 sq. mtrs. Plot) to the petitioner both adjoining to each other which shall be situated at 30 meter main road of Town Development Scheme. c. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue direction to the respondent authorities to expeditiously decide the representation filed by the petitioner which is pending before the respondent authorities. e. Cost of the proceedings. f. Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents are trying to usrup the petitioner’s property by acquiring their 3 land which is adjoining to both sides of main road but not providing the plot at main road in the proposed project i.e. Town Development Scheme. They submits that the petitioners objection dated 21.01.2025, 28.03.2025 and 13.05.2025 is still pending for adjudication by the respondent authority. The respondent authority is also acquiring some other specific persons lands under the Town Development Scheme but their lands are situated in interior areas but then also in favor of those specific individual persons, proposal has been done to allot their plots at main road of Town Development Scheme, this is against the public policy but also invalid and constitutionally not sustainable. 3. They further submits that the respondent authority had proposed allotment of 2 developed plot i.e. C-75 and C-76 to the petitioners after revised allotment under their scheme against their proposed acquisition of entire land. It is pertinent here to mention that currently the petitioners lands are adjoining to both sides of the road and petitioners lands are being acquired for widening of that particular road i.e. about 30 meters in the proposed Town Development Scheme. The respondent authorities had proposed plots C-75 and C-76 to allot to the petitioners which is situated far away from the proposed widened main road in the said Town Development Scheme. The 4 respondent authority had alloted the plot no. C-83 against the Khasra No. 798/10 to the erstwhile owner i.e. Smt. Bharti Gidwani but the Khasra No. 798/10 was already been purchased by the petitioner on 07.09.2022 and mutated their name in the revenue records, then also respondent authority had allotted plot C-83 to the erstwhile owner. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents opposes the relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners, however raised no objection with regard to directing the concerned authority to decide the objection raised by the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the aspects of the case, this court has observed that on 18th February, 2025, the petitioner in pursuance of Section 50(3) of the C.G. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 was invited for personal hearing on 27th February, 2025 (Annexure R-3-1). On 27th February 2025 hearing was duly attended and represented by the petitioner with regard to the objections. On 7th March, 2025 objection made by the petitioners were decided by the Committee (Annexuer R-3-3). However, on perusal of the order of R-3-3 and objection made by the 5 petitioners, it is crystal clear that objections made by the petitioners with regard to para 2,3 and 6 have not been delt with by the concerned committee. Para No. 2,3 and 6 are as under:- 2.;g fd vkosnd@vkifÙkdrkZ ds vkf/kiR; ,oa LokfeRo dh xzke &eafnj glkSn i-g-ua- 00022 rg-& eafnj glkSn] ftyk& jk;iqj fLFkr Hkwfe [kljk ua- 790@1 jdck 0-2590 gs0] [kljk ua- 790@2 jdck 0-3030 gs0] [kljk ua- 796@2 jdck 1-349 gs0 dqy jdck 1-911 gs- tks Hkwfe n;ky nkl Hks:ey ,p-;w-,Q drkZ n;ky nkl Hks:ey jkt iky ds uke ij jkTkLo vfHkys[k esa ntkZ gSa] tks Jh lkbZ izlUu fcYMlZ dh Hkwfe ls yxh gS ftlesa ckmafMmaMªhoky cuk gS bl izdkj lHkh Hkwfe ,d gh Hkw&Lokeh ds uke ij ntZ gS o lHkh Hkwfe eq[; ekxZ ij fLFkr gS ftls Vkmu Iykfuax Ldhe ¼T.P.S.½ esa fy;k x;k gSa ds cnys vafre IykV lwph lsDVj lh esa C&76 ¼8026-18 oxZ ehVj½ IykV vkcafVr fd; x;k gS tks vyx IykV gksus o eq[; ekxZ ls vanj dk IykV gksus ds dkj.k vuqi;qDr gksus ls bl ij vkifÙk gSA 2- vkosnd vkifÙkdrkZ fd Hkwfe ftldk [kljk uacj 798@10 jdck 0-074 gs- ftls vkosnd ds }kjk vxLr 2022 esa dz; fd;k tk pqdk gS ds cnys vkcafVr IykV lwph esa vkosnd dk uke ugh tqM+k gS NRDA dh IykV vkcafVr lwph esa vkosnd dk uke ntZ fd;k tk;s vkSj ,d lkFk vykV fd;k tk;sA 3- ;g fd vkosnd dh mijksDr Hkwfe ds lHkh [kljs Jh lkbZ ilUu fcYMlZ dh Hkwfe ds [kljs ls yxh gS ,oa eq[; ekxZ ls yxh gqbZ gS o iwjh tehu ,d gh Hkwfe Lokeh fd Hkwfe gksus ls vkosnd dks dqy jdck 39]630 oxZehVj dh Hkwfe ds cnys ,d lkFk 42% 16]644-60 oxZehVj] c&108 o c&68 ds lehi ,Dlizsl gkbos ds 30 ehVj ds lfoZl jksM ls yxk IykV vkcafVr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 7. On 1st April, 2025 after deciding the objection as per Section 50(3) of the Act of 1973 and making all the necessary amendment in the draft as per Section 50(4) of the Act of 1973, the same was submitted to the State Govt. for necessary approval under Section 50(5) (1) of the Act of 1973, thereafter, on 01.05.2025 State Govt. constituted a committee under Section 50(5) of the Act of 1973 and has invited objections as per Annexure R-3-8. On 19th May, 2025 objections were invited 6 through Gazetted Notification (R-3-9). On 27th June, 2025 the objections received have been forwarded to the Secretary for further order as per Annexure R-3-11. 8. Records reveals that the petitioners, have already made objections before the concerned Authority. Therefore, the petition is premature, as the proceedings under Section 50(6) of the Act of 1973 has already initiated. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case this Court directs the concerned authority to decide the objections made by the petitioners with respect to para no. 2,3 and 6(aforementioned) dated 21.01.2025 in an objective manner before finalizing the allotment procedure and pass a reasoned order. 9. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authority shall decide the objections made by the petitioners in accordance with law and as per the rules and regulations without being prejudice by the order of this court. 10. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is dispose of. 11. Certified copies as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) ALFIZA Judge