1 / 5 2025:CGHC:36458 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(C) No. 3911 of 2025 Deepesh Gavel S/o. Omprakash Gavel, Aged About 27 Years R/o. Gond Bordi, Tehsil Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Regional Divisional Office, Raipur, Through - Its Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Raipur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajeev Gandhi Marg (Vip Marg), Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajeev Gandhi Marg (Vip Marg), Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi, District - New Delhi, Delhi 4 - Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Additional District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Nayab Tehsildar, Kharsia, Tehsil Kharsia, District Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe along with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocates For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, CGC VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.07.28 17:45:05 +0530 2 / 5 For State/Respondents No.4 to 6 : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/07/2025 Heard. 1. The petitioner has been filed this writ petition on the following relief(s) : “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the order dated 10.03.2025, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Raigarh, whereby the NOC application filled by the petitioner has been rejected and the letter bearing no. 1558/Explosive License/2025, 23.05.2025 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the Additional District Magistrate, Raigarh may kindly be directed to consider the NOC application filed by the petitioner in accordance with the Law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of "Adhunik Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit V/S State of M.P. And Another". 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the Additional District Magistrate, Raigarh and Indian Oil Corporation Limited may kindly be directed to reconsider the entire matter pertains to issuance of the NOC to the petitioner. 3 / 5 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in the year 1959, lease for the land bearing Khasra No.193/3 was granted in favour of the Ramdayal Teli S/o Kartik Ram (Caste Teli). On 07.09.1995, Sonou Ram (Caste Teli) has sold the land bearing Khasra No.193/3 to one Bhog Kunwar W/o Dhruw Kumar Patel (Caste Aghariya). On 05.05.2007, a Civil Suit bearing No.54-A/2006 was declared in favour of Owner - Bhog Kunwar Patel and the land bearing Khasra No.193/3 area 1.619 hectare along with other land has been declared to be Title Land of the Bhog Kunwar. On 02.08.2008 and 22.08.2008, Bhog Kunwar has sold the above land i.e., bearing Khasra No.193/3 to the ANJR Developers & Constructions which is re-numbered as Khasra No.193/4 and 193/5. On 16.05.2019 & 26.07.2019, the petitioner has purchased the property from the ANJR Developers & Constructions and on 21.12.2023, respondent No.1 has issued letter of intent in favour of the petitioner. On 05.01.2024, petitioner has preferred an application for NOC before the Collector, Raigarh and on 10.03.2025, application for grant of NOC was rejected by the Additional District Magistrate and on 23.05.2025, Indian Oil Corporation Limited has issued a letter bearing No.1558/Explosive License/2025 and 06 months 4 / 5 time granted to the petitioner to provide the alternative land. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No.4 before rejecting the application of permission of NOC has not been given proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further contended the Bhumiswami rights has already granted to the first lessee, i.e., Ramdayal Teli in the year 1959, therefore, Section 165(7-b) of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 would not be applicable retrospectively and the persons who was granted Bhumiswami rights prior to 1980, i.e., prior to inserted Sub-Section 3 of Section 158 and inserted in Sub- Section (7-b) of Section 165 w.e.f. 28.10.1992 the provisions of Section 165(7-b) of the Act, 1959 would not be applicable and Bhumiswami rights which were granted to the original lease holder prior 1980 as Bhumiswami would not be taken away by the provisions of Act, 1959. He further contended that the erstwhile owner- Bhog Kunwar has already been declared owner of the said land by decree of suit No.54-A/2006 which was decreed on 05.05.2007. 3. Learned counsel for the State contended that the matter may be remitted back to the concerned Collector to reconsider the matter and petitioner may raise his all grievances before the Collector. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5 / 5 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. The impugned order dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No.4 - Collector & District Magistrate, Raigarh (C.G.) is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No.4 to decide the application made by the petitioner under Section 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and affected parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of ‘60 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with rules, regulations and law. The petitioner is also directed to raise his all grievances as raised before this Court along with all relevant documents and order of this Court before Respondent No.4. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court and shall decide the case of the petitioners on its own merits. 7. With the aforesaid observations & directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant