1 2025:CGHC:45793 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4771 of 2025 Bhanwarlal Bothra S/o Lunkaran Bothra Aged About 65 Years R/o Sambalpur, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Rera), Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Khemchand Soni S/o Prabhakar Soni, R/o Village- Sambalpur, Tahsil- Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.10 18:09:26 +0530 2 09/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought the following relief(s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 2 & 3 to forthwith decide the complaints made by the petitioner against the illegal plotting carried out by the respondent no. 4 over the agricultural land, without following the provisions of Colonizer Act and without diversion of agricultural land. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 2 & 3 to taken appropriate action against the responsible revenue authority involved into sale and mutation of agricultural land in the name of respondent no. 4. 10.4 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case including cost of litigation.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the instant writ petition is not preferred against any particular order, but the same is being preferred against the illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of respondent authorities in not deciding the complaints made by the petitioner regarding illegal plotting of agricultural for residential purposes by the respondent no. 4, without any prior approval of the concerned authority and in violation of provisions of Colonizer Act. Hence this petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to seeking direction the respondents no. 2 & 3 to forthwith decide the complaints made by the petitioner against the illegal plotting carried out by the respondent no. 4 over the agricultural land, without following the provisions of Colonizer Act and without diversion of agricultural land. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has no locus standi to seeking direction the respondents no. 2 & 3 to forthwith decide the complaints made by the petitioner against the illegal plotting carried out by the respondent no. 4 over the agricultural land, without following the provisions of Colonizer Act and without diversion of agricultural land. Hence, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has no locus standi to pursue the matter before this Court, therefore, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, this petition is not maintainable. 4 6. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter before the concerned competent authority, if so desire. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant