1 CGHC010154652023 2026:CGHC:32944 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2338 of 2023 1 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board Through Executive Engineer, Division-1, Kabir Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Competent Authority Under The Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act, 1976 Collectorate, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Vishal S/o Govind Sahu R/o Danganiya P.H.No.104, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Babu Lal S/o Vishal R/o Danganiya P.H.No.104, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Plutus Infraventure Private Limited Through Its Director RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Chandramohini Dewangan W/o Kunj Bihari Dewangan, R/o Village Danganiya, P.H.No.58, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Shivang Dubey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in case no. no.314 A/90 C(1) years 78-79, Raipur. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction/order and quash/ set aside the The order dated 29.12.2003 and 05.01.2004 passed by respondent no.2 in case no. 314 A/ 90 C/1 years 78-79, ANNEXURE P/1. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner– Chhattisgarh Housing Board is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 for the purpose of undertaking housing and development 3 schemes in the State. It is submitted that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were duly initiated in respect of the lands belonging to respondent No. 4 situated at Village Danganiya, P.H. No. 104, Tahsil and District Raipur, comprising Khasra No. 83/18 admeasuring 464 square metres; Khasra No. 83/17 admeasuring 650 square metres; Khasra No. 83/20 admeasuring 3,270 square metres; Khasra No. 83/21 admeasuring 3,270 square metres; Khasra No. 83/23 admeasuring 3,620 square metres; Khasra No. 180/13 admeasuring 8,170 square metres; and Khasra No. 245 admeasuring 200 square metres. It is further submitted that after completion of the statutory proceedings, notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Act, 1976 were duly published on 11.11.1983 and 04.05.1984 respectively, whereupon the subject lands vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the demand raised by respondent No. 2, the petitioner deposited a sum of ₹23,71,967/- towards premium and Bhu Bhatak, and thereafter possession of the subject lands was formally handed over to the petitioner on 11.08.1989. It is contended that the petitioner, after obtaining all requisite permissions from the competent authorities and the Town and Country Planning Department, developed a residential colony over the said lands, constructed houses and allotted/sold the same to various allottees, who are presently in occupation thereof. It is further 4 submitted that, after nearly three decades, respondents No. 4 and 5 invoked Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 seeking divestment of the acquired lands without impleading the petitioner, despite the petitioner being a necessary and proper party having lawful possession of the lands. It is argued that respondent No. 2 entertained the said proceedings and passed the impugned order behind the back of the petitioner without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order proceeds on an erroneous assumption that no notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, 1976 had been published, whereas the official records clearly establish publication of notifications under Sections 10(1) and 10(3), resulting in statutory vesting of the lands in the State Government. It is contended that once the lands had vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and possession had already been delivered to the petitioner, the competent authority had no jurisdiction or authority under the Repeal Act, 1999 to divest or restore the lands to the erstwhile landowners. It is also submitted that the subsequent notice issued by the Official Liquidator in respect of Khasra No. 83/20 prompted the petitioner to disclose the true factual and legal position, pointing out that respondents No. 4 to 6 had no right, title or interest in the lands and that any subsequent transactions or encumbrances created by them were wholly illegal. It is, therefore, 5 contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1976 and the Repeal Act of 1999, violative of the principles of natural justice, and liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State and respondent No. 6 opposes the writ petition and submits that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law, after due consideration of the relevant facts and material available on record. It is contended that the competent authority has acted well within the scope of its jurisdiction, and that the impugned order neither suffers from any legal infirmity nor warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order though it has been submitted by counsel for respondent No.6 that petitioner has been granted opportunity of hearing however, he could not demonstrate the same and therefore, it appears that the side of the petitioner CG Housing Board was not heard before passing the said order which was also passed in the teeth of the possession certificate dated 11.8.1989 by which the possession of the land in question bearing Khasra No. 83/18, admeasuring 464 square metres; Khasra No. 83/17, admeasuring 650 square metres; Khasra No. 83/20, admeasuring 3,270 square metres; Khasra No. 83/21, 6 admeasuring 3,270 square metres; Khasra No. 83/23, admeasuring 3,620 square metres; Khasra No. 180/13, admeasuring 8,170 square metres; and Khasra No. 245, admeasuring 200 square metres was given to the MP Housing Board (now the petitioner) and therefore, the petitioner was necessary party to be heard before passing of the impugned order. 6. Considering the totality of the case and further considering the fact after taking possession of the land in question, the Housing Board constructed the houses on the most part of land and some area is lying vacant, and particularly the fact that the Housing Board-petitioner has not been heard before passing of impugned order dated 29.12.2003 by the Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling Raipur, the impugned order is unsustainable and violative of the principles of natural justice. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2003 is quashed/set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority under the Urban Land Ceiling, Raipur to consider and pass order afresh. The Competent Authority is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and hear the matter afresh and after taking preliminary evidence as is required under the law. Appropriate order be passed in this respect by the competent authority within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties i.e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the petitioner. 7 8. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the Competent Authority shall pass order on its own merits in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat