1 CGHC010393012022 2026:CGHC:33161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5335 of 2022 N.M.D.C Karmchari Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Through its authorised representative Mr. Shrawan Kodopa, President NMDC Karmchari Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Aged About 62 Years S/o Lakshaman Kodopa having Office at New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue, DKS Bhawan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Raipur Development Authority, Through Director, Raipur Development Authority, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, District Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Revenue Inspector, Raipur Development Authority, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Directorate Of Town And Country, through Joint Director, Town And Country Planning, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Surendra Kumar Arora, aged about 59 years, S/o Jeevandamal Kakkad, R/o A - 20, Shankar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.08.01 16:36:27 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) For Respondent- State : : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. GA For Respondents 2 to 4 For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : A. Issue writ of certio rari quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.09.2022 (at ANNEXURE P/1 of the instant writ petition) panchnama dated 23.09.2022 (at ANNEXURE P/2 of the instant writ petition) and consequential revenue proceedings; B. Issue writ of mandamus to Respondent authorities directing them to restore the land to the earlier condition; C. Issue writ of mandamus directing Respondent authorities to allot the land to Respondent No. 7 in an area not forming part of the Developed Land allotted to the Petitioner society, if any right exists in favout of Respondent No. 7 to that effect. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 20.09.2022, respondent No.7 was allotted land admeasuring 3460 3 sq. ft. by the Respondent-RDA. Accordingly, the subject land was required to be specified by the concerned Tehsildar pursuant to which the Panchnama dated 23.9.2022 was drawn up. He submits that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the subject land had already been allotted to the petitioner-Society, which material fact was overlooked by the concerned authorities. Therefore, the allotment in favour of respondent No.7 is bad in law and consequently, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent-RDA submits that the impugned order has been passed only to specify and identify the exact portion of the land prior to handing over possession, which cannot be termed illegal. He further submits that upon such specification, if any portion of the subject land is found to overlap with the land allotted to the Petitioner-Society, appropriate orders will be passed by the concerned authority in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits that though allotment has been made vide order dated 20.09.2022, however, possession could not handed over to respondent No.7. Hence, the impugned order was passed only to identify and specify the precise portion of land to be delivered to respondent No.7. Hence, the action of the respondent authorities does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 6. Evidently, the order dated 20.09.2022 was passed solely to 4 specify the 3460 sq. ft. of land allotted to respondent No.7. At this stage, contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that land allotted to the Petitioner-Society cannot be granted to respondent No.7 cannot be adjudicated. If, upon completion of such specification, the land in question is found to overlap with the land allotted to the Petitioner-Society, the concerned authorities shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As such, the prayer seeking quashment of the order dated 20.9.2022 cannot be entertained at this stage. 7. In light of the foregoing, the respondent authorities are directed to specify the subject land in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties and pass appropriate orders thereafter. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or in respect of the specification of the subject land. The competent authorities are at liberty to to decide the matter independently in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the Petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay