1 2025:CGHC:57142-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6145 of 2025 Chandra Prakash Mittal S/o Late Prabhudayal Mittal Aged About 68 Years R/o Bada Bazar, Chirimiri, District- (M.C.B.), Chhattisgarh. ...Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Urban Development And Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector District- (M.C.B.), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Municipal Council Manendragarh Through- Chief Municipal Officer, District- (M.C.B.), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Director Town And Country Planning, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Real Estate Regulatory Authority Through- Chairman, Shashtri Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (Cspdcl) Through - Managing Director, Vidyut Seva Bhavan, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Kulwant Singh S/o Late Guruvachan Singh Aged About 80 Years R/o Ward No. 12, In Front Of Dr. Karan Clinic, Manendragarh, District- (M.C.B.), Chhattisgarh. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.26 12:08:50 +0530 2 8 - Charanjeet Singh Raina S/o Kulwant Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Ward No. 12 In Front Of Dr. Karan Clinic, Manendragarh, District (M.C.B.), Chhattisgarh. 9 - Bhupendra Singh S/o Jagjeet Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Ward No. 12 In Front Of Dr. Karan Clinic, Manendragarh, District (M.C.B.), Chhattisgarh. 10 - Tejwant Singh Raina S/o Kulwant Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 12 In Front Of Dr. Karan Clinic, Manendragarh, District (M.C.B.), Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Mittal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG For Respondent No.6: : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 25/11/2025 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 To issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction, or Order, declaring that Rule 15-A Sub-rule (1) and Rule 15-B of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013, as amended, are ultra vires the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and violative of Articles 14, and 21 of the 3 Constitution of India. 10.2 To declare that Notification No. F 7-8/2011/18, dated 21.08.2019, whereby the State extended the cutoff date for regularization to 31.07.2019 and reduced the occupancy threshold to 10%, is an arbitrary exercise of delegated legislative power, inconsistent with the object of the parent Acts, and thus ultra vires the parent statutes and the Constitution. 10.3 To issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction, or Order restraining the respondents from enforcing Rules 15-A Sub-rule (1) and 15-B of the 2013 Rules, or acting in furtherance of the provisions therein. 10.4 To issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction, or Order to direct the Respondent Authorities, particularly Respondents Nos. 2 (Collector), 3 (Chief Municipal Officer), 4 (Director, Town and Country Planning), and 5 (Chairman, RERA), to forthwith initiate and pursue to conclusion all mandatory penal proceedings and statutory sanctions against the private Respondents (Nos. 7 to 10) for unauthorized colonization, illegal diversion of land, and violations of planning and real-estate laws, including, but not limited to: • Initiating criminal complaints and proceedings for management takeover and land forfeiture under Sections 339-C to 339-G of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. • Issuing mandatory demolition/restoration orders under Sections 36 and 37 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. • Initiating penal proceedings and imposing minimum 4 penalties for non-registration under Sections 3, 59, and 60 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). • Enforcing penalties and reversing the illegal diversion of land under Section 172 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. 10.5 To direct the Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to take immediate action, in accordance with Section 339D of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, against all officers and authorities who, in the area of illegal colonization in Ward No. 21, Manendragarh, have abetted or facilitated illegal colonization or illegal diversion of land, including granting unauthorized layout or map approvals, sanctioning electricity or water supply, failing to report illegal diversions, or otherwise enabling illegal colonization, and to hold them accountable in accordance with law. 10.6 To direct all concerned Respondent Authorities to consider and decide the Petitioner's pending representations in accordance with law and ensure compliance with their statutory duties of enforcement and supervision under the aforesaid enactments within a time- bound manner. 10.7 To direct all concerned Respondent Authorities to investigate and take appropriate action against officers or authorities responsible for misappropriating public funds or diverting municipal resources for the development of illegal colonies in Ward No. 21, Manendragarh, including recovery of misused funds and departmental proceedings. 10.8 To direct the State Government to conduct a departmental inquiry into the role of revenue officials involved in the preparation of unauthorized maps and registration of sale deeds over unapproved lands in Ward 5 No. 21, Manendragarh, and to take action as per law. 10.9 To issue a further Writ of Mandamus or Direction permanently restraining Respondents No. 3 (Chief Municipal Officer) and No. 6 (CSPDCL) from utilizing any public funds, or extending any further municipal services or utilities (including roads, drainage, water, or electricity connections), into the identified area of illegal colonization. 10.10 To pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.11 Award the costs of this petition to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the Petitioner, owner of Khasra No. 217/11 at Village Manendragarh, approaches this Court under Article 226 being directly affected by an unauthorized colony developed on about ten acres of adjoining agricultural land by Respondents No. 7 to 10, who, acting jointly as an unregistered colonizer, have illegally subdivided and sold over one hundred plots without registration, diversion, or any approved layout, and whose development, as recorded in a revenue spot- inspection, also encroaches upon the Petitioner’s land. Despite repeated representations to the Collector, Chief Municipal Officer, Director (Town & Country Planning) and the State Government authorities have refused to initiate mandatory proceedings under Sections 339-C to 339-I of the Municipalities Act, 1961, and have instead extended civic amenities to the illegal colony at public expense, citing Rules 15-A(1) and 15-B of the Chhattisgarh 6 Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013, as amended on 21.08.2019, which are being applied to retrospectively validate illegal colonies. The resulting unplanned habitation with no drainage, sewage, paved roads, or public spaces has caused continuing civil injury, depreciation of compliant properties, and deprivation of the Petitioner’s proprietary rights, besides undermining the statutory scheme of planned development. As the authorities’ reliance on the impugned Rules has led to complete non-enforcement of penal provisions and imminent regularization of illegal colonies, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that Rules 15-A(1), 15-B and the 2019 Notification are ultra vires and inoperative, along with directions to enforce the Parent Acts in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rules 15-A(1) and 15-B of the 2013 Rules are manifestly ultra vires the Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, as both enactments mandate strict compliance with planning norms and impose penalties for unauthorized development under Sections 339-A to 339-I and 292-A to 292-I respectively, without conferring any power upon the State Government to retrospectively regularize illegal colonies or grant immunity from prosecution. The impugned Rules impermissibly travel beyond the parent statutes by creating substantive rights for unauthorized colonizers retrospective regularization, provision of civic amenities, and 7 exemption from penal action contrary to settled law that delegated legislation cannot override or expand statutory provisions, as affirmed in Naresh Chandra Agrawal v. ICAI, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 114; Kerala SEB v. Thomas Joseph, (2023) 11 SCC 700; ADM (Rev.) Delhi v. Siri Ram, (2000) 5 SCC 451; and Kunj Behari Lal Butail, (2000) 3 SCC 40. He would further submit that Clause (xvii) of Rule 15-A(1), granting automatic immunity from offences under Sections 339-C to 339-G and 292-C to 292-G, amounts to an executive amnesty scheme wholly beyond delegated authority, violating Article 14. Further, the Rules also conflict with the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; the Land Revenue Code, 1959; and the RERA Act, 2016, each of which criminalizes unauthorized development and mandates demolition, diversion, or registration. By legitimizing colonies never approved under zoning, land-use, revenue, or RERA norms, and by extending basic services to illegal constructions, the Rules nullify statutory safeguards and incentivize violations, contrary to the Supreme Court’s caution in Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, (2004) 8 SCC 733 that regularization must remain a narrow exception and not become the rule. The impugned provisions therefore subvert the legislative intent of planned urban development and are liable to be struck down. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the State would at the outset contend that the petitioner lacks locus standi to maintain the present 8 challenge, as no specific or demonstrable legal right of the petitioner has been infringed by the impugned Rules. It is submitted that the petition is founded on abstract assertions regarding urban-planning policy and speculative apprehensions of administrative consequences, none of which confer standing in the absence of concrete prejudice. The petitioner has neither pleaded nor established any direct impact upon his proprietary, statutory, or fundamental rights, nor shown that he is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Articles 226/227. The State further submits that the petition is in the nature of a roving public-interest challenge without satisfying the threshold requirements of bona fides, affected class representation, or disclosure of material particulars, and impermissibly seeks to convert policy disagreements into constitutional adjudication. On this ground alone, it is urged, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for want of locus. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records appended with the petition. 6. Having considered the pleadings and submissions, this Court finds substantial merit in the preliminary objection raised by the State regarding the petitioner’s locus standi. The reliefs sought are essentially in the nature of a broad policy challenge to the validity of Rules 15-A(1), 15-B and the 2019 Notification, coupled with a direction for wholesale enforcement of various statutory provisions against private respondents and public officials. 9 However, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any specific, legally enforceable right that has been violated by the impugned Rules so as to warrant invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The averments regarding alleged depreciation of property value, apprehended non-compliance of planning norms, or generalized assertions of unplanned development do not constitute concrete or individualized injury attributable to the impugned delegated legislation. The claim is in essence a diffuse, policy-oriented grievance seeking to supervise governmental and municipal functioning, which is impermissible in a private writ petition and does not satisfy the settled test of an “aggrieved person”. 7. In absence of a demonstrable nexus between the impugned Rules and any infringement of the petitioner’s proprietary or constitutional rights, the petition assumes the colour of a roving public-interest litigation without meeting the requisite parameters of bona fides, representative character, or public-law injury. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi, without examining the merits of the challenge to the Rules. 8. It is the trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject-matter and the word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority. It is also the settled law that a person 10 shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. (See: Vinoy Kumar v State of U.P. and Others (2001) 4 SCC 734). 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself as not maintainable. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/Rahul