1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5177 of 2011 1 - Bhilai Agrasen Education Society Through President R.K.Agrawal, S/o A.K.Agrawal, R/o H.No.Ews 306, Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Cg ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 2. The Secretary, Department of Town and Country Planning, State of CG, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 3. The Collector (Nazul), Korba. 4. The Director, Town and Country Planning, State of CG, D. K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur. 5. The Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Korba. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional AG Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 08/12/2025 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.12.15 17:01:00 +0530 2 I. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct quash the order dated 12.5.2011 bearing No.686/NGN/2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no.5-Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Korba. ii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Facts which emerges in this writ petition is that the petitioner is an education society running number of educational institution. The State Government had taken a policy decision that the societies, which are interested in opening job oriented courses like Industrial Training Institue (hereinafter shall be referred as 'ITI') in tribal areas, would be given land by the State Government. In pursuance of the said policy decision, the petitioner society applied for allotment of government/nazul land bearing Plot No.3/1 area 0.040 hectares out of 10.586 hectares situated at P.H. No.4, R.I. Circle Korba, District Korba for construction of building of ITI. On application being made by the petitioner society, a revenue case was registered under the provisions of Part-IV-1 Clause 25 of the C.G. Revenue Book Circular on 19.3.2007 and in the said proceedings the respondent No.5 granted its no objection for allotment of land on 3.11.2006 stating that as per Korba Development Plan, the land is reserved for plantation, therefore, further action would be possible only after changing the user of the land at the government level. On the basis of this recommendation of the State Government, the Tehsildar (Nazul) after obtaining the views of the Municipal Corporation, Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning, Korba; Chief General Manager, SECL, Korba, submitted memorandum to the State Government. The State Government after considering entire allotted the said land to the petitioner, however, when the petitioner moved an application before the Town & Country Planning Department seeking no objection for construction of building, the Town & Country Planning 3 Department refused to grant no objection on the ground that in the Korba Development Plan the land use is contrary to which the permission has been sought. Hence this petition on the following facts and other grounds. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intended to start an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) at District Korba. For that purposes an application was moved before the respondents authorities to allot a land. After due revenue proceedings, a land comprised in piece of Khasra No. 03/1 area 0.040 hectares out of total 10.586 hectares situated at PH No. 04, R.I. Circle Korba was allotted in favour of the petitioner by executing a lease deed. Thereafter, lease rent was also calculated and petitioner was directed to deposit the lease rent of Rs. 11,03,333/- and yearly rent of Rs. 22,027 total Rs. 11,25,360/- was required to be paid by the petitioner. Apart from that, stamp duty of Rs. 89,191/- and registration duty of Rs. 66,993/- total amounting to Rs. 1,56,184/- was also payable. The petitioner complied the entire formalities and later on, a lease deed dated 14.05.2009 was also executed in respect of the said land. After execution of the said land, the petitioner wanted to construct the building of the I.T.I. and for that purposes, necessary application were made to the concerned authorities. It was informed that the respondent No. 5 vide its communication dated 24.02.2010 (annexure P-16) intimated the petitioners that the land which has been lease out to the petitioner is meant for plantation in the development plan (master plan) at District Korba, CG. Later on, the impugned order dated 12.05.2011 was given to the petitioner that no objection was issued by the respondent No. 5 that no construction on the said lease land may be given as it is against the land use as mentioned in the development plan (master plan) of Korba. Thus, this writ petition was filed challenging the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the lease out land meant for plantation purpose in the development plan (master 4 plan) of Korba, It should have not been leased out to the petitioner and the amount should have not been received by the petitioner. He submits that this Court time an again granted time to the respondents to provide an alternative land to the petitioner but the same has not been also done by the respondents. Thus, he submits that once the purpose for which lease was granted to the petitioner, is not been fulfilled, either the impugned order may be set aside or the amount which has been paid by the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner by the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission and submits that of-course the lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said land however, in the development plan (master plan), the said land was meant for proposed plantation, therefore, no objection certificate could have not been given to the petitioner. Therefore, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. He submits that in the event this Court passes an order of refund of amount, no interest may be awarded as the amount is to be paid from the public exchequer. 6. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The facts in this case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the said lease out to the petitioner and lease deed was also executed. For that purposes, the necessary amount as required as mentioned above has also been paid by the petitioner. The development plan (master plan) for the year 2021 was already in existence at the time when the lease deed was executed. According to which, the said land is for the purposes of proposed plantation. Thus, the respondent/State was aware of the fact that land which has been lease out to the petitioner is meant only for the purposes of proposed plantation, no construction could have been made on the said land. Thus, the petitioner intention to construct I.T.I. would never be served. The action of the respondents keeping the petitioner in dark appears to be not bonafide and genuine. As in the development plan 5 (master plan) for the said land is meant for proposed plantation, their cannot any construction by the petitioner. At the same time, it to be seen that the petitioner should also not suffer on account of some error may not be bonafide by the respondents. 8. From the record it appears that the respondent No. 5 as vide its communication dated 30.11.2009 intimated the Additional Collector (respondent No. 3) that the said land is meant for proposed plantation in the development plan (master plan). Despite of that, the lease deed was executed. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that for the action of the respondents the petitioner should not suffer. This Court passes the following order that the respondents shall pay the amount of Rs. 11,25,360/- to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% from the date of its deposit till actual payment. The respondents are at liberty for proceeding ahead with the cancellation of the lease deed and petitioner would delivered the vacant possession to the respondents/State. 9. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan