1 / 3 2026:CGHC:25552 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1924 of 2021 • Seth Kirodimal Dharmada Trust Raigarh, Through Its Trustee- Rajesh Moda S/o Ramesh Kumar Moda, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Gaddi Chowk Raigarh, Police Station Kotwali, Raigarh, Civil and Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Urban Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Additional Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3. The Deputy Director Town And Country Planning Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 5. The Nazul Officer, Raigarh, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. Rajendra Agrawal S/o Banarasi Das Agrawal, R/o Station Road, Government Indira Gandhi Primary School, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate For Intervener : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 22/06/2026 1. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner has filed this writ petition only on the apprehension that his land would be allotted to Respondent PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 No. 6. Petitioner is owner of the land bearing plot No. 63, however, proceeding for allotment of land under the policy formulated by the State is with respect to the land bearing plot No. 62. In Annexure P-1, due to inadvertent mistake plot number is mentioned as 63 instead of 62. In other proceeding which is forming part of writ petition from page No. 13, it is appearing that proceeding for allotment is with respect to plot No. 62 and not 63 and therefore writ petition be dismissed. 2. Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for intervener submits that he has purchased the land from Resp. No. 6 by registered sale deed which is plot No. 62. 3. Learned State counsel submits that though the application was initially filed with respect to plot No. 62, however, during pendency of the proceeding, application was filed by Respondent No. 6 seeking amendment in the application and accordingly in the application plot number is amended as 62 for allotment in favour of Resp. No. 6. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. In the document Annexure P-1 enclosed along with writ petition plot No. is mentioned as 63, however, in the subsequent proceeding from dated 08.05.2020 there is mention of plot no. 62 which is subject matter of the proceeding for allotment of land in favour of Resp. No. 6. Further, Annexure R-2/A settlement of the land is of plot No. 62 in favour of Resp. No. 6. 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, there is no substance for adjudication of this writ petition as the plot owned by petitioner bearing 3 / 3 plot No. 63 is not subject to proceeding for allotment of the land in favour of Respondent No. 6 but it is of allotment of plot no. 62. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in view of the reply filed by the State. Petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate proceeding before appropriate forum if any exigency arises in future. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE