1 CGHC010017362024 2026:CGHC:36414 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 258 of 2024 Gram Vikas Samiti, Village Bhatgaon, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, C.G., Through Its President Ramadhar Sahu, S/o Late Soburam Sahu, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Tehsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Division Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector, Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Tehsildar, Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - District Dewangan Samiti, Dhamtari District Dhamtari (C.G.), District Raipur, C.G., Through Its President Vijay Dewangan, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Hig-8, House Bord Colony, Hatkeshwar, Mowa, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For the Petitioner :Mr. Shobhit Kosta, Advocate For the State For Respondent No.6 : : Mr. RK Gupta, Addl AG. Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: 2 “10. Relief(s) Sought: 10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 25/9/23 (Annexure P-3) and the impugned proceedings in the interest of justice. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner representation within an outer limit as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit. 10.3) Alternatively, This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to change the present allotment of land to some other place in the interest of justice. 10.4) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.5) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner in the present writ petition, are that land bearing Khasra No.653/1, admeasuring 6.400 hectares, situated at Village Bhatgaon, District Dhamtari (hereinafter referred to as “disputed land”) was recorded as grassland in Khasra B-I for the year 2021-22. The District Dewangan Samaj, Dhamtari, through its President, submitted an application on 13.06.2019 before the concerned authority seeking 3 allotment of the disputed land for the purpose of construction of a community building. Upon coming to know about said application, petitioner and other villagers immediately submitted their objections before the concerned authorities raising objections to the proposed allotment and construction. Although the respondent authorities issued a publication and general notice, the same was allegedly done discreetly with a view to preventing the petitioner and other villagers from submitting their objections and thereafter approval for allotment of the land was allegedly obtained illegally. The petitioner and other villagers have continuously submitted several representations before the respondent authorities against the alleged illegal allotment of Government land and the construction being carried out by the private respondent. However, no action has been taken on the representations submitted by the petitioner. Hence, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that impugned allotment order dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P-3) as well as the action of the respondent authorities, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India and other applicable laws. In view of the provisions contained in Section 23-A of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, the concerned authorities have no power or jurisdiction to allot the Government land in favour of a community. He further contended that prior to passing of the impugned 4 allotment order, the Gram Sabha and the Gram Panchayat had already cancelled their earlier approval for allotment of the land in question. The private respondent (respondent No.6) already has a community centre in the same village and petitioner and other villagers had been continuously raising objections to the proposed allotment. Despite the same, they were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned allotment order. In the present case, the respondent authorities have acted arbitrarily in allotting the land in favour of the private respondent. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that land in question was duly allotted in favour of respondent No. 6 pursuant to the impugned allotment order and that there is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the said impugned order. Therefore, no interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is warranted. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submits that allotment of land in favour of respondent No.6 is lawful and has been made for a bona fide community purpose. The allegations made by the petitioner regarding any illegality, arbitrariness or extraneous consideration are wholly misconceived and are not supported by any cogent material on record. The petitioner has no vested right over the disputed land and cannot claim any right merely on the basis of his objection to the proposed allotment. 5 The impugned allotment order has been passed by the competent authority after following the procedure prescribed under the applicable rules and regulations. Hence, instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition including the impugned order. 7. On perusal of impugned allotment order, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the impugned allotment order suffers from any such illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The allegations made by the petitioner with regard to the manner in which the allotment proceedings were conducted and the alleged extraneous considerations are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish that the impugned order is legally unsustainable. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to submit an appropriate representation before the concerned authority. In the event such representation has already been submitted, the petitioner will be at liberty to pursue the same before the competent authority, in accordance with law. SSD Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.