1 2025:CGHC:39327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 726 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Chandra Agrawal Aged About 50 Years Occupation- Business, R/o Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Urban Administration And Development Department, Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Now- Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh) 2 - Under Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Dks Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Now- Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh) 3 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Shri Nandram Madawa S/o Late Shri Lalli Ram Madawa Aged About 69 Years R/o Behind Indira Vihar Colony, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. B. P. Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Khushboo Naresh Dua, Advocate For State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this MCC seeks modification of the judgment dated 18.02.2025, wherein the this Court allowed WPC No. 729 of 2012 while quashing the impugned order and directing the respondents to grant the lease within two months, while also instructing them to reconsider the lease amount reasonably. Operative part of Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 order dated 18.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 729 of 2012 is quoted hereunder : “11. While considering proviso (ii) to sub- section (5) of Section 80 of the Act of 1956 as well as Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994, it is quite vivid that the aforesaid provisions are not applicable to the present matter as the property is not being sold, but, only it is being leased out in favour of the Petitioner for a period of 30 years. At this state, after lase of about 18 years of issuance of the bid certainly the rates of the lease would have been increased and the rate quoted by the Petitioner at the rate of Rs.260 per square feet would not be proper and in order to do equitable justice I deem it appropriate to enhance the same. A proposal has been made to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who, after seeking instructions from the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner is ready to propose Rs.350 per square feet in order to get the premises on lease and according to him it would be an appropriate rate as the Petitioner has already deposited a huge some which is still lying deposited with the Corporation. The rates and other things have been escalated and now the Petitioner has to invest a huge amount in the leased premises, as such this point is also required to be seen so that the Petitioner may get justice. After considering the entire matter and examining the same with all angles the action taken by Respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation seems to be unjustified and without any plausible reason. The matter which has already been finalised by the Mayor-in-Council after following due process of law, it cannot be rejected only for the sake of justification of onerous ground while holding that the 3 amount proposed is very meager. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P1) is liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, while quashing the impugned notice dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure P1), I direct the Respondents authorities to re-consider the amount of lease and it may be considered reasonably and to pass appropriate orders in respect of the Petitioner while granting lease of the subject premises within a period of two months from today looking to the fact that the lease was granted way back on 16.9.2006 and thereafter 18 years have already passed.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell are that the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 729 of 2012 challenging the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 28.12.2011, whereby the lease granted to him for the open roof of Arpa Complex was canceled. Following reliefs have been sought in the writ petition : “10.1 That this Hon’ble court be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the respondent authorities and consider the same for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality of the impugned order/letter. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court be pleased to be pleased to issue a writ I the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/letter dated 28/12/2011 (Annexure P- 1). 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to allot the open roof of Arpa Complex, measuring 5,690 square feet to the petitioner. 4 10.4 That in the alternative, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to return the amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 20% per annum. 10.5 This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner, against the respondents.” Although the applicant was initially declared eligible for the lease, the cancellation was made on the ground that the amount proposed by the applicant for the lease was very meager and thus, the lease could not be granted. The Municipal Corporation of Bilaspur had issued an auction notice on 09.05.2006 inviting bids for the lease of the open roof space of the Arpa Complex, located near the old bus stand in Bilaspur. The notice was published in prominent local newspapers as well as displayed on municipal boards. The applicant participated in the auction and quoted a rate of Rs. 260/- per square foot. After depositing an initial amount of Rs. 3,45,000/-, he was declared the successful bidder on 25.05.2006 and was directed to pay a further amount of Rs. 7,40,000/-, which he duly paid by cheque, making the total deposit Rs. 10,85,000/-. Following this, the proposal was approved by the Mayor- in-Council on the same day and subsequently ratified by the General Body of the Municipal Corporation on 16.09.2006. However, certain respondents challenged the lease allotment in a separate writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to consider their representation under Section 421 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Despite the repeated follow-ups made by applicant, the Municipal Corporation did not provide a decision on the representation 5 but later canceled the lease on 28.12.2011, citing the inadequacy of the lease amount quoted by the applicant as the sole reason. This cancellation was done arbitrarily and without proper consideration of the fact that the lease had already been granted following due process and approvals. In the writ petition filed by the applicant, the Court was urged to quash the cancellation order, direct the allotment of the lease, or alternatively, order refund of the amount deposited with 20% interest per annum. The matter was heard finally on 19.11.2024, and the Court delivered its judgment on 18.02.2025. The Court quashed the impugned cancellation order and held that the original lease rate of Rs. 260/- per square foot was not proper after eighteen years had elapsed since the lease was granted. The Court, to do equitable justice, directed the lease amount to be reconsidered “reasonably.” During the hearing, the counsel for applicant proposed a revised lease rate of Rs. 350/- per square foot, which was accepted as reasonable. The Court observed that the lease had been approved by the Mayor-in-Council and the Municipal Corporation following due process, and it was unjustified to cancel it only on the ground of a low quoted amount. The Court then directed the respondents to grant the lease within two months after reconsidering the lease amount reasonably. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present Miscellaneous Case (MCC) has been preferred seeking a limited modification or clarification of the judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 729 of 2012, whereby the Court was pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.12.2011 cancelling the lease granted to the appellant for the open roof of Arpa Complex, and directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the lease amount 6 reasonably and grant the lease within a period of two months. It is submitted that the judgment passed by this Court has substantially acknowledged and affirmed the legality of the claim of appellant, particularly noting that the lease was awarded through a lawful, transparent auction process pursuant to a public notice issued by the Municipal Corporation on 09.05.2006, and that the appellant had duly deposited the requisite bid amounts totalling Rs. 10,85,000/-, following which the proposal was not only approved by the Mayor-in-Council but also ratified by the General Body of the Corporation on 16.09.2006. Despite this, and after the passage of nearly five years, the lease was arbitrarily cancelled on the sole ground that the rate quoted, Rs. 260/- per square foot, was too meagre, without acknowledging the fact that the rate was determined in accordance with the then prevailing guideline and bid terms issued by the Collector, and more importantly, without affording any hearing or opportunity to the appellant. This Court, after perusing all relevant facts and documents, justly observed that the cancellation was without any plausible basis and unjustified, particularly when the decision-making authority had completed all procedural formalities in favour of the appellant. At the time of final hearing on 19.11.2024, and in keeping with the passage of time and increased market rates, theappellant voluntarily agreed to enhance the lease rate to Rs. 350/- per square foot, and this was recorded and acknowledged by this Court while directing the respondents to reconsider the lease amount “reasonably” and finalise the lease within two months. However, in light of subsequent communication from the respondent authorities, there now appears to be ambiguity regarding the interpretation of what constitutes a "reasonable" rate, as the 7 respondents are attempting to link the lease rate to the present guideline value of Rs. 13.5 lakh per square metre, translating to Rs. 8,583/- per square foot, an exorbitantly disproportionate rate for an open roof property that was bid upon nearly two decades ago, and which continues to remain undeveloped and unutilised due to the prolonged litigation. The present MCC is therefore necessitated to pray for a clarification or limited modification to the extent that the “reasonable rate” referred to in para 12 of the judgment dated 18.02.2025 may be interpreted in line with the voluntary offer of Rs. 350/- per square foot made by the appellant and duly recorded by this Court during the course of hearing. The said rate reflects both an acknowledgment of present-day realities and a genuine effort by the appellant to resolve the matter equitably without causing loss to the public exchequer or prolonging unnecessary litigation. It is submitted that the appellant has acted in good faith throughout, having participated in a public auction, deposited substantial sums which continue to remain with the Corporation without any interest for over 18 years, and has now demonstrated bona fide intent by proposing an enhanced rate which this Court found to be fair. Therefore, to ensure that the spirit of justice intended in the judgment of this Court is not frustrated by administrative arbitrariness or misinterpretation, and to avoid future contempt or complications in implementation, the appellant prays that this Court may be pleased to clarify or modify the order dated 18.02.2025 to the extent of confirming that the lease rate of Rs. 350/- per square foot, as offered and recorded, shall be treated as the reasonable rate for the purpose of finalising the lease in favour of 8 the appellant, and that the lease be executed accordingly within a time- bound manner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, submits that the present Miscellaneous Case (MCC), filed by the petitioner seeking modification of the judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 729 of 2012, is legally untenable and not maintainable in its present form, inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory alternative remedy provided under the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, which expressly provides under Section 2 that an appeal shall lie to a Division Bench from any judgment or order passed by a Single Judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; thus, without exhausting such efficacious appellate remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek modification of a concluded judgment through a miscellaneous proceeding, and this attempt at circumventing the legal remedy must be deprecated and the petition dismissed in limine. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 further submits that the land in question, namely the Arpa Complex situated near the Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur, including the area surrounding Rajeev Plaza, is undisputedly owned by the Municipal Corporation and is located in a commercially prime zone of the city with high real estate value, and as such, any development or allotment concerning this land must be handled with utmost diligence and in accordance with prevailing statutory norms. It is pertinent to mention that during the earlier auction held in 2011, the rate applicable to the open roof portion of the Arpa Complex was derived from the then prevailing Stamp Duty Guidelines of Collector, which provided for a 20% reduction in rate due 9 to the open nature of the roof, thereby arriving at a rate of Rs. 250/- per square foot at that time; however, the present situation is markedly different as the Guideline for Stamp Duty issued by the Collector has been substantially revised and the current rate applicable to commercial land in the said locality stands at Rs. 13,50,000/- per square metre. Applying the standard 20% deduction for open roof areas, the Municipal Corporation has arrived at a revised rate of Rs. 94,500/- per square metre, which translates to Rs. 8,583/- per square foot, and this revised valuation forms the basis for the latest reserve price fixed for auction by the respondent - Corporation, which is not only fair and just but also strictly conforms to the officially notified rates and eliminates any possibility of arbitrariness or favoritism. The actions of the Municipal Corporation are fully supported by documentary evidence including the official note-sheet prepared by the department and the current Guideline for Stamp Duty issued by Collector, which clearly demonstrate that the valuation has been undertaken transparently, lawfully, and in accordance with the applicable financial and administrative norms. In light of the foregoing, the respondent submits that the challenge of appellant is without merit, both procedurally and substantively, as the appellant is not only attempting to bypass the appellate mechanism prescribed under law but is also seeking to re-agitate issues already settled through a valid judicial order dated 18.02.2025. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 729 of 2012. 10 6. In the course of hearing of the writ petition, and in recognition of changed circumstances and market conditions, the petitioner voluntarily enhanced the lease rate from Rs. 260/- to Rs. 350/- per square foot, which was recorded and accepted as reasonable in the judgment dated 18.02.2025. The respondents were accordingly directed to finalize the lease process. 7. The instant MCC has been filed on the limited ground that, despite the clear findings of this Court and the voluntary enhancement of lease rate to Rs. 350/-, the Municipal Corporation is now insisting on linking the lease rate to the prevailing Collector Guideline value of Rs. 13.5 lakh per square metre (i.e., Rs. 8,583/- per square foot), which is clearly disproportionate and unrelated to the historical and factual background of the case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this MCC, contending that such modification can only be sought through a statutory appeal under Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. It is further contended that the prevailing guideline rates must be strictly adhered to, as the land in question is commercially valuable and must be dealt with in accordance with present valuation norms. 8. Having considered the submissions of both parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds it appropriate to address the preliminary objection first. While it is true that the statutory appeal lies under the 2006 Act, the present MCC does not seek to challenge or alter the core findings of the judgment dated 18.02.2025. Rather, it seeks clarification/modification to the limited extent of interpretation 11 and implementation of the directions already issued by this Court, which is well within the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to ensure ends of justice and proper execution of its orders. 9. As regards the substantive issue, this Court finds that the lease in question was initiated and finalized in 2006 after full compliance with procedural and legal formalities. The petitioner has deposited substantial amounts (Rs. 10,85,000/-) which have remained with the Corporation without interest for over 18 years. The cancellation order was found to be unjustified and was quashed by this Court. During the hearing, the petitioner voluntarily proposed a revised lease rate of Rs. 350/- per square foot, which was found to be just and equitable considering the prolonged delay, historical rates, and absence of development. The operative portion of the judgment directed the respondents to reconsider the lease rate "reasonably", but the same was not intended to reopen the entire valuation process or to apply present-day guideline rates mechanically, particularly when the offer of Rs. 350/- was recorded with judicial affirmation. This Court has considered each and every aspect of the matter. The proposal of petitioner of Rs. 350/- per square foot as lease consideration is substantially higher than the earlier prevailing rate of Rs. 250/- per square foot, which had been accepted by the Municipal Corporation during the auction held in 2011. 10. It must be borne in mind that the lease had already been finalized following due process of law. The only impediment to its execution was the arbitrary cancellation later imposed, which led to prolonged litigation for over 13 years. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent Municipal Corporation ought to have evaluated the lease rate by 12 considering the peculiar factual matrix, including the completion of all procedural steps, substantial deposit made in 2006, non-utilization of the property due to litigation, and absence of any interest paid to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, while modifying the earlier order dated 18.02.2025 to the limited extent, it is directed that the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur shall negotiate and finalise the lease rate with the petitioner keeping in view the offer of Rs. 350/- per square foot made by the petitioner, as recorded in the judgment. For assessment of reasonable lease rent, the guideline rates prevailing between the years 2006 to 2012 shall be taken into consideration, and the highest rate prevailing during that period may be taken into account for comparison and thereafter, the lease shall be executed in favour of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of production of this order, subject to the adherence of petitioner to all other lease formalities. 12. This direction is being issued to do complete and equitable justice to both parties, keeping in mind that the petitioner has already invested considerable funds for nearly two decades which is lying pending before the Municipal Corporation without interest. The interest of Municipal Corporation is also protected, as the lease rate is directed to be enhanced to a figure higher than the earlier accepted amount. 13. With the above clarification/modification, this MCC is allowed to the extent indicated herein. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE