1 2026:CGHC:6-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 773 of 2025 1. Ramnarayan Vyas S/o Late H.N. Vyas Aged About 55 Years, R/o 24 Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 7) 2. Ajay Sharma S/o Late Shri Fattelal Sharma Aged About 60 Years R/o 44, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 08) 3. Ashok Purohit S/o Late Shri Daulal Purohit Aged About 64 Years R/o 47, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 09) ... Appellants versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 01) 2. Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 02) 3. The Middle Income Group Housing Co-Operative Society Limited Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, Regd. No. Dr/rpr9/1960, Through The O;cer -In-Charge, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 04) BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.01.02 17:03:04 +0530 2 5. Commissioner Raipur Division, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 05) 6. The Nazul O;cer Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 06) 7. Shri Jain Shwetamber Terapanthi Sabha Through Its President, Shri Premchand Jain, S/o Late Shri Manak Chand Jain, Presently Aged About 66 Years, Shri Jain Shwetambar Terapanthi Sabha, Sada Bazar, R/o House No. 2 Choubey Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 01) 8. Dharamchand Bhansali S/o Late Shri Mohanlal Bhansali Aged About 79 Years R/o Sadar Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 02) 9. Rajendra Daga S/o Shri K.L. Daga Aged About 69 Years The Ex- Chairman Of Middle Income Group Housing Co-Operative Society Limited, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Petitioner No. 03) … Respondents For Appellants : Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocates For Respondent Nos. 1 & 4 to 6/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate For Respondent No.7 Mr. Siddhartha Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2.1.2026 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Bhakta and Mr. Vivek Bhakta, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 4 to 6 as well as Mr. 3 Siddharth Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. 2. The appellants have Cled this writ appeal against the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP227 No. 937/2015 (Shri Jain Shwetambar Terapanthi Sabha and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition Cled by respondents No.7 to 9 herein / writ petitioners therein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.7 – Shri Jain Shwetambar Terapanthi Sabha, Amolak Bhawan, Sadar Bazar, Raipur, (C.G.), is a registered society under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registration Act, 1973. Respondent No. 3 – Middle Income Group Housing Co-Operative Society Limited, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur (C.G.), is a Co-operative Housing society registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent No. 3 – Society applied for allotment of land before the State Government, and the State Government approved the allotment of land bearing Survey Nos. 248, 287 and 284 of Plots No. 24/1 and 26/1 ad-measuring 3,49,720 sq.ft. vide order dated 13.07.1978. The lease deed of the aforementioned land was executed in favor of respondent No. 3. Respondent No.7 took a decision to construct a temple in Raipur, and they approached Respondent No. 3 – Society for allotment of land for the construction 4 of the temple and submitted an application to the President of Respondent No. 3 – Society. Respondent No. 3 agreed to allot the land and asked Respondent No. 1 to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the development charges, and the said amount was deposited by Respondent No. 1 with the Central Bank of India, Sadar Bazar – Raipur Branch through Cheque No. 014888 on 31.03.1992. On 15.04.1992, Respondent No. 3 – Society issued an allotment letter in favor of Petitioner No. 1. As per the allotment letter, 7762 sq.ft. of land was allotted to Respondent No. 1 for public purposes. Thereafter, respondents No.7 to 9, with the intention to raise the construction, moved an application for the grant of No Objection CertiCcate (NOC) before respondent No. 3 in the year 2000, and it was granted on 21.05.2000. The public authorities, like the Nazul O;cer, Raipur, the Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department, and the Municipal Corporation, Raipur, had also issued NOCs for the construction of the temple. Respondents No.7 to 9 moved an application for the renewal of the lease for the land which was allotted to it before the Nazul O;cer, Raipur, and it was renewed vide order dated 16.01.2004. The appellants herein moved an application before the Additional Collector, Raipur, according to the provisions of Clause 18 (i) of Chapter IV of the Revenue Book Circular on 29.01.2007, assailing the order passed by the Nazul O;cer, Raipur, dated 16.01.2004. The Additional Collector, Raipur, while 5 exercising the power conferred under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, vide order dated 06.08.2007, set-aside the order passed by the Nazul O;cer, Raipur. Respondents No.7 to 9 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Raipur Division, who vide order dated 14.03.2011, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, Respondents No.7 to 9 preferred a revision before the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, and it was also dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2012. Finally, Respondents No.7 to 9 approached the Department of Revenue & Disaster Management, State of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, by submitting a representation, which was rejected vide order dated 04.08.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, Respondents No.7 to 9 Cled a writ petition, which was allowed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure A-1), passed by the learned Single Judge relating to land admeasuring about 7762 sq.ft., is contrary to the facts, evidence, and material available on record and is erroneous on the face of the record. The said order is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the allotment letter dated 15.04.1992 (Annexure P-8) was issued solely by the then President/Chairman of the Middle Income Group Housing Co-operative Society Limited, without any 6 approval of the State Government or a valid resolution of the Society. In the absence of such authority, the said allotment letter conferred no right, title, or interest upon Respondents No. 7 to 9, and therefore could not form the basis for mutation in their favour. Despite this, the learned Single Judge erroneously treated the allotment as valid. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge wrongly relied upon the observation that Respondent No. 7 deposited a premium amount of ₹1,00,000/- on 31.03.1992. It is submitted that no direction was ever issued by the State authorities for deposit of any premium pursuant to the alleged allotment dated 15.04.1992. The alleged deposit was shown in collusion with Respondent No.3 and did not create any lawful right or title in favour of Respondents No. 7 to9. 5. It is also submitted that in proceedings before the Additional Collector, Raipur, the then Secretary of Jain Shwetambar Terapanthi Sabha Cled an a;davit stating that the land measuring 7762 square feet was obtained as “Nishulk Daan” (free donation) from the Housing Society. However, the learned Single Judge, in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, observed that a premium of ₹1,00,000/- was paid through cheque dated 31.03.1992, without any material on record indicating into which account the said cheque was credited. This contradiction has not been addressed or reconciled. Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge failed to record any 7 Cnding while setting aside the order dated 04.08.2012 passed by the State of Chhattisgarh, wherein it was categorically held that the entire land was originally allotted to the Middle Income Group Housing Co-operative Society; that the applicants had failed to produce any document of title; and that renewal of lease in favour of any third party, when the original lease stood in the name of the Society, was legally impermissible. The said order also a;rmed that the orders passed by the Additional Collector and Commissioner were lawful and did not warrant interference. It is further submitted that the appellants had Cled an application before the Collector, Raipur under Clause 18(1)(4) of the Revenue Book Circular, alleging fraud and conspiracy by Respondents No.7 to 9 in securing mutation of the land despite having no original lease in their favour. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that speciCc grounds challenging the allotment letter dated 15.04.1992 and the alleged donation were raised by the appellants in paragraphs 3, 8, and 11 of the memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority. Learned counsel submits that the mutation order dated 16.01.2004 was passed by the Nazul O;cer without impleading the appellants and without giving them any notice. Consequently, the appellants preferred an application under Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, along with an application for condonation of delay, which was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 8 29.01.2007. Despite this, the learned Single Judge made unwarranted observations in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order, which are unsustainable. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the scope and eIect of Section 32 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which preserves the inherent powers of revenue courts to pass orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. Lastly, learned counsel submits that Respondents No. 7 to 9 had invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Cling WP (227) No. 937/2015. In light of the law laid down by this Court in Dr. Ram Sharan Lal Tripathi v. State of Chhattisgrh (WPC No.2113/2015), the present writ appeal is clearly maintainable. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellants prays that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition Cled by respondents No.7 to 9, which warrants no interference by this Court. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has observed that it is apparent from the application moved by respondents No. 7 to 9 (appellants herein) that the application for condonation of delay was not moved. The Additional Collector, Raipur, set aside the order passed by the Nazul O;cer on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Sections 109 and 110 of the Code, 1959, has not been followed. If the procedure was not followed by the Nazul O;cer while passing the order of mutation, the authority concerned ought to have remitted the matter back to the concerned Nazul O;cer to pass a fresh order after aIording a due opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Commissioner, Raipur Division, the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue, as well as the State of Chhattisgarh, dismissed the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioners (Respondents No.7 to 9). Learned Single Judge further observed that in the present case, respondents No. 7 to 9 (appellants herein) have not challenged the order of allotment issued by respondent No. 3 dated 15.04.1992 before the Additional Collector, Raipur, and no reason has been assigned by respondents No. 7 to 9 in this regard either in the application moved before the Additional Collector, Raipur, or in the return Cled to the writ petition. Respondents No. 7 to 9 have also not challenged the permission granted by respondent No. 3 dated 21.05.2000. The application for mutation was moved by Petitioner 10 No. 1 before the Nazul O;cer, Raipur, pursuant to the order of allotment and NOCs issued by respondent No. 3 and other establishments. 9. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the Additional Collector, Raipur, has not considered the fact that respondent No. 7 was a member of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 – Society, thus it can be inferred that the land admeasuring 7,762 square feet was allotted by respondent No. 7 also. If respondents No. 7 to 9 were aggrieved with the order of mutation, they should have challenged it within the period of limitation. Further, the application for condonation of delay was not moved by respondents No. 7 to 9 in support of the application moved under Section 32 of the Code, 1959, and this issue was not considered by the authority concerned in its order dated 06.08.2007. Respondents No. 7 to 9 were not a party to the order passed by the Nazul O;cer, and no application was moved by respondents No. 7 to 9 seeking therein permission to prefer an appeal or revision against the said order and allowed the writ petition Cled by the writ petitioners / respondents No.7 to 9 herein and quashed the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Raipur (06.08.2007); the Commissioner, Raipur Division (14.03.2011); the Chhattisgarh Board of Revenue (06.08.2012); and the Department of Revenue & Disaster Management (04.08.2014). 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel 11 appearing for the parties, perusing the documents annexed with writ petition as also in writ appeal and also considering the Cndings recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition Cled by the writ petitioners / respondents No.7 to 9 herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality or inCrmity. Learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition Cled by the writ petitioners / respondents No.7 to 9 herein, which warrants no interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu