1 2026:CGHC:24529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4265 of 2023 Order Reserved on 27.04.2026 Order Delivered on 18.06.2026 1 - Samay Das Avinashi S/o Late Gau Karan Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Dongakohroud, Tehsil Pamgarh, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Tehsil Pamgarh, Dist. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Pamgarh, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 5 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Pamgarh, Tehsil Pamgarh, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Pamgarh, Tehsil Pamgarh, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 7 - Seema Sai W/o Rohit Kumar Sai R/o Village Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 8 - Harshvardhan Yadav S/o Dinesh Yadav R/o Village And Post Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 9 - Bhagwat Suryavanshi S/o Itwari Prasad R/o Village Bhiloni, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 10 - Bed Prakash Yadav S/o Shakkar Lal Yadav R/o Village Kodabhat, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 11 - Bharatlal Yadav S/o Hetram Yadav R/o Village Meubhatha, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 12 - Aniket Yadav S/o Narayan Yadav R/o Village Khokhri, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 13 - Shivam Singh S/o Bhupendra Singh R/o Village Gas Agency Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 14 - Shantilal Yadav S/o Terash Yadav R/o Village Rasouta, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 3 15 - Mahesh Kumar S/o Fadal Dewangan R/o Village Pakariya Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 16 - Rajesh Kumar S/o Roshan Lal Katle R/o Village Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 17 - Rupesh Kumar S/o Roshan Lal Suryavanshi R/o Village Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 18 - Lalit Sahu S/o Jamuna Prasad Sahu R/o Village Sasha, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 19 - Subhankar Sarkar S/o Tapan Kumar R/o Village Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 20 - Manohar Lal Suryawanshi S/o Shiv Charan R/o Village Bundela, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 21 - Abhishek Dubey S/o Dinesh Dubey R/o Village Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 22 - Rahul Dubey S/o Dinesh Dubey R/o Village Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 23 - Shanta Bai W/o Bhagwat Suryavanshi R/o Village Kosir, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 24 - Punit Thawait S/o Manharan Thawait R/o Village Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 4 25 - Priyanshu Thawait S/o Ramesh Kumar R/o Village Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 26 - Sudarshan Soni S/o Bhuendra Soni R/o Village Pamgarh, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Samay Das Avinashi, Petitioner in person is present. For State :- Mr. S.S. Choubey, P.L. For Respondents No. 5 & 6 :- Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocate For Respondents No. 21 to 23 & 25 :- Mr. Arvind Prasad, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the illegal sale/allotment/transfer of 21 shops situated in a Commercial Complex constructed by Gram Panchayat Pamgarh, located opposite the Court of Civil Judge, Pamgarh, Tehsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “the property in question”). It is the case of the petitioner that the said commercial complex is a public property constructed from Panchayat funds for public benefit; however, the respondent authorities, in 5 collusion with private party respondents, have transferred/allotted the aforesaid shops to influential persons in an arbitrary, illegal and non-transparent manner without following the due procedure prescribed under the applicable laws, rules and governing provisions relating to disposal of Gram Panchayat properties. The petitioner contends that no proper public auction, advertisement or fair selection process was undertaken before allotting the shops, thereby causing serious loss to public revenue and conferring undue benefit upon private individuals in violation of the principles of fairness, transparency and equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of Village Dongakohroud, Tehsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, and is also a senior citizen and social worker. The petitioner was in need of a suitable shop/premises for his livelihood and social work and, therefore, had been making enquiries before the respondent authorities regarding allotment/transfer of 21 newly constructed shops situated in the commercial complex constructed by Gram Panchayat Pamgarh opposite the Court of Civil Judge, Pamgarh. The 6 respondent authorities had assured the petitioner that the allotment/transfer of the aforesaid shops would be carried out strictly in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 and other prevailing laws. However, the petitioner later came to know that the said 21 shops had already been illegally allotted/transferred/sold to certain influential persons without following any fair, transparent or lawful procedure. It is alleged that each shop has been transferred for an amount of approximately Rs.10 to 14 lakhs. Despite repeated complaints and representations submitted by the petitioner before the respondent authorities, no action has been taken. The petitioner has also sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the procedure adopted for transfer of the shops, but the reply is still awaited. According to the petitioner, some of the allottees have already started using the shops for different commercial purposes. Hence, alleging arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondent authorities in transferring public property contrary to law, the present petition has been filed. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- 7 “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call all the related original records of the immovable property concerned herein. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to check/cancel the illegal/unlawful transfer/sale/lease of 21 shops of the Gram Panchayat Pamgarh which is located inside the Commercial Complex situated/constructed just opposite the Court of Civil Judge, Pamgarh, Tehsil Pamgarh, and Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) to different powerful and influential persons. 3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct party respondents to perform their functions with utmost honesty and transparency. 4. Any other relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in allotting/transferring the 21 shops situated in the commercial complex constructed by Gram Panchayat Pamgarh is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994. It is submitted that under Section 65(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1993, no immovable property belonging to a Panchayat can be transferred without prior sanction of the competent authority, however, the respondent authorities have proceeded to transfer the shops 8 without following the mandatory statutory procedure. Learned counsel further submits that no valid resolution as required under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1994 was passed by Gram Panchayat Pamgarh prior to such transfer and no public auction was conducted as mandated under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1994. It is also contended that mandatory notice requirements contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1994, including publication of notice and auction details, were not complied with. According to the petitioner, the shops have been allotted to influential persons in a clandestine and mala fide manner, thereby depriving the petitioner, who is a 74- year-old senior citizen belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, from participating in a fair and transparent process for allotment of shops for his livelihood. It is further submitted that the impugned action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and amounts to abuse of power by the respondent authorities entrusted with management of public property. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and not maintainable in the present form. It is submitted that though the petitioner has filed the petition in his personal capacity, the nature of relief 9 sought is essentially in the nature of a public interest litigation challenging the allotment process of shops constructed by the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner has neither participated in the auction/allotment process nor suffered any personal legal injury and, therefore, he cannot challenge the allotment made in favour of third parties. It is also contended that the petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as the beneficiaries/allottees of the shops have not been impleaded. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations regarding illegal and arbitrary allotment are false and baseless as the allotment of the shops was carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 after issuance of a public auction notice dated 15.05.2023 published in a widely circulated local newspaper, pursuant to which interested persons participated in the process and the shops were allotted accordingly. It is further submitted that the shops were not permanently transferred but were merely leased out for a period of five years on monthly rent and, therefore, no prior sanction under the Rules, 1994 was required. Learned State counsel submits that the respondent 10 authorities have acted strictly in accordance with law and no arbitrariness, mala fide or illegality has been committed in the allotment process. Hence, the petition being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 & 6 submits that Gram Panchayat Pamgarh has acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 while leasing out the shops situated in the commercial complex. It is submitted that a proper resolution was passed by the competent Panchayat authority and thereafter a public notice/advertisement dated 15.05.2023 was issued in a widely circulated local newspaper inviting applications from interested persons. Learned counsel further submits that the allotment was made through a transparent process after participation of eligible applicants and no favouritism or arbitrariness was adopted by the Panchayat authorities. It is also contended that the petitioner never participated in the auction/allotment proceedings and, therefore, cannot now challenge the process merely on the basis of bald allegations. Learned counsel submits that the shops have only been 11 leased out for a period of five years on payment of monthly rent and there has been no permanent transfer or sale of Panchayat property requiring prior sanction of the State Government under Section 65 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. It is further submitted that the present petition is founded upon incorrect and misleading facts and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 21 to 23 and 25 submits that the said respondents are bona fide allottees who have obtained allotment of the shops pursuant to a duly conducted public process initiated by the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that the answering respondents had participated in the allotment proceedings in response to the public advertisement issued by the Panchayat authorities and after completion of the prescribed formalities, the shops were allotted in their favour lawfully. Learned counsel further submits that no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or procedural illegality has been specifically established against the answering respondents and they cannot be deprived of their vested rights on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations made by the petitioner. It is contended that the answering respondents have already invested substantial 12 amounts and have commenced their business activities from the allotted shops and any interference at this stage would seriously prejudice their rights and interests. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any violation of statutory provisions or infringement of any enforceable legal right and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the core grievance of the petitioner relates to alleged irregularity in the allotment/lease of shops constructed by Gram Panchayat Pamgarh. The petitioner has questioned the transparency and legality of the process adopted by the Gram Panchayat in allotting the said shops. 9. The admitted position that emerges from the pleadings is that the shops in question were allotted/leased by the Gram Panchayat after issuance of a public notice dated 15.05.2023 and the process was undertaken under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994. The respondents have categorically asserted that the allotment was made through a transparent procedure and on the basis of participation of eligible applicants. 13 10. This Court also finds that the petitioner has not participated in the allotment/auction process and has approached this Court alleging illegality primarily on the basis of general and vague assertions. No specific material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the statutory procedure prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 or the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994 has been violated. 11. It further appears that the petitioner’s grievance stems from the fact that he was not allotted one of the shops, which he expected to receive from the respondent authorities. On account of such non-allotment, the petitioner has, in retaliation, challenged the entire construction and allotment process undertaken by the Gram Panchayat. The allegations that “powerful and influential persons” have been favoured are bald in nature and cannot be accepted in absence of cogent material. 12. From the perusal of the return filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it is evident that the entire allotment process has been conducted strictly in accordance with law under the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Transfer of Immovable Property) 14 Rules, 1994. The allotment of shops to eligible applicants cannot be held to be illegal merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. 13. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that during the relevant period, the Gram Panchayat has since been converted into a Nagar Panchayat vide notification dated 17.03.2023. However, this subsequent development does not, in any manner, dilute the legality of the process already undertaken. The petitioner has also not availed the alternative statutory remedy available under the law by approaching the competent appellate authority before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. It is further evident that the petitioner did not participate in the allotment proceedings. Without participating in the process, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the same on vague allegations of procedural irregularity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489, has held that while State action in matters of allotment of public property must be fair and non-arbitrary under Article 14, a person who has not participated in a transparent 15 process cannot, in absence of demonstrable illegality, be permitted to assail the same. 15. The Constitution Bench in Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295, has further held that judicial review in matters of allotment of public property is limited and the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions, so long as the action is not vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions. 16. In Delhi Development Authority v. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats, (2008) 2 SCC 672, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that Courts must exercise restraint in interfering with policy decisions or allocation of public resources, unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, irrational or contrary to statutory provisions. It was further emphasized that mere allegations or dissatisfaction of an individual do not justify interference under Article 226. 17. Applying the aforesaid settled principles, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of statutory provisions in the allotment 16 process. The entire challenge is founded on unsubstantiated allegations without any legal or factual foundation. 18. From the pleadings and material on record, it further appears that the petitioner is seeking relief essentially on account of non-allotment of a shop, which he expected to receive. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such non-allotment, the remedy, if any, lies in accordance with law and not by way of a collateral challenge to a completed public process. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 21. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge vishakha