1 CGHC010379792022 2026:CGHC:35787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5060 of 2022 Order Reserved on 16.07.2026 Order Passed on 13.08.2026 1 - M/s Shyam Builcon Private Limited Through-Partner Abhishek Sonkar Pandariya Road, Shakti Mandir Chowk Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Secretary, Urban Administration Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Nagar Palika Parishad Mungeli Through-The Chief Municipal Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Mungeli District-Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate. For State/Respondents No. 1 & 3 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), whereby the petitioner has been directed to execute the registration of the land RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.14 19:36:20 +0530 2 reserved for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in favour of the Municipal Council, Mungeli within a period of seven days, failing which necessary action for registration of an F.I.R. shall be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner assails the said order dated 03.11.2022 on the ground that, pursuant to the completion certificate dated 23.12.2015 issued in his favour as a colonizer, the land reserved for EWS and mortgaged in favour of the Municipal Council, Mungeli was duly released and the petitioner was permitted to sell the said land. Acting upon the said permission, the petitioner sold the aforesaid land. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is contrary to the completion certificate dated 23.12.2015 and is also in violation of Rule 10(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013 (for brevity, "the Rules of 2013"). Accordingly, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “10.1. To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2. To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure P-1) is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure P-1). 10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to take into consideration the application dated 22.07.2022 made by the petitioner in accordance with ‘Rules of 2013’ and ‘Rules of 1998’. 10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of 3 developing residential colonies. The present writ petition is instituted through one of its partners, duly authorized by the other partner. The petitioner was granted registration as a colonizer by the competent authority on 28.02.2011 under the provisions of Section 339A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the applicable Colonizer Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner's application for development of a residential colony over land bearing Khasra Nos. 1090, 1087, 1108/1, 1107/2 and 1109/2, admeasuring 5.65 acres situated in P.H. No. 6/29 village Mungeli, was duly approved by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning on 31.10.2012. Upon completion of all development works in accordance with the statutory requirements, the petitioner applied for release of the mortgaged land and the land reserved for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). By order dated 23.12.2015, the competent authority released both the mortgaged land as well as the land reserved for EWS purposes and communicated the same to the Sub-Registrar, pursuant to which the petitioner lawfully transferred the said land to various purchasers. Subsequently, despite the aforesaid order of release, the respondent authorities issued successive notices alleging that the petitioner had failed to transfer the EWS land and called upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions relating to EWS reservation. The petitioner consistently replied that the land had already been released by the competent authority on 4 23.12.2015 and had thereafter been sold to bona fide purchasers. Without prejudice, the petitioner also submitted an application dated 22.07.2022 offering alternate land of equivalent area and value, in conformity with Rule 10 of the applicable Colonizer Rules; however, the said application has remained undecided. Ignoring the earlier order of release and the petitioner's pending proposal for alternate land, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 directing the petitioner to transfer 15% land reserved for EWS and threatening initiation of criminal proceedings, thereby giving rise to the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order directing the petitioner to register the EWS land in favour of the Municipal Council, Mungeli is contrary to the completion certificate dated 23.12.2015, whereby the Municipal Council itself had released the EWS land in favour of the petitioner/colonizer while issuing the completion certificate. He submits that, after having released the EWS land, the Municipal Council, Mungeli cannot now pass the impugned order, which is in the teeth of its own completion certificate dated 23.12.2015. He further submits that under the Rules of 1998, if a colonizer does not wish to reserve land or houses within the colony for EWS purposes, he is entitled to transfer equivalent land of the same value to the competent 5 authority at a different location. He also submits that Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2013 provides that where, for any reason, the reserved EWS land cannot be transferred, the colonizer may offer alternate residential land situated within 2 kilometres from the boundary of the residential colony, provided that such land is of equivalent value to the 15% land reserved for EWS. In such circumstances, the competent authority is empowered to accept the alternate land in favour of the Municipal Council. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner has already offered alternate residential land situated within 2 kilometres of the petitioner's residential colony, which satisfies the requirements of Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2013. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have considered the said proposal instead of insisting upon transfer of the original EWS land, particularly when, on the strength of the completion certificate dated 23.12.2015, the petitioner had already sold the land forming part of the colony to third parties and no EWS land is presently available. As such, the respondents ought to have accepted the petitioner's offer of alternate land in accordance with Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2013. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/Municipal Council, Mungeli, submits that the petitioner has illegally sold the land of the colony which was reserved for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), and such land could not have been sold under 6 any circumstances. He further submits that the completion certificate dated 23.12.2015 relied upon by the petitioner is a forged and fabricated document, as no such document is available in the records of the respondent-Municipal Council. According to him, the petitioner has illegally alienated the EWS land and, therefore, is liable to face the consequences in accordance with law. It is further argued that the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 prescribe that the land reserved for EWS is required to be transferred in favour of the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council, and the said requirement has been reiterated and incorporated in the Rules of 2013. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and, therefore, is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the present petition is founded upon an alleged forged completion certificate. He further contends that the petitioner never approached the Municipal Council with any proposal for transfer of alternate land under Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2013 and, instead, submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), which is not the competent authority under the Rules. According to him, the benefit of Rule 10(2) is available only to a bona fide colonizer and not to a person who has violated the statutory conditions and sought to rely upon a 7 forged document. It is lastly submitted that the concerned officer has categorically denied, in writing, having issued any completion certificate dated 23.12.2015 to the petitioner, and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State also vehemently submits that the petitioner/colonizer has not approached this Court with bona fide intentions. It is contended that the petitioner has relied upon a forged completion certificate purporting to permit the sale of the land reserved for EWS, which was subsequently found to be a fabricated document, as the concerned authority has categorically denied having ever issued such a certificate. According to the learned State counsel, a petitioner seeking equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must approach the Court with clean hands and bona fide conduct, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. So far as the reliance placed by the petitioner upon Rule 10(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013 is concerned, it is submitted that the said provision has no application to the facts of the present case. Consequently, it is argued that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the provisions contained in the Chhattisgarh 8 Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013, it appears that the petitioner was initially governed by the Rules of 1998 and, subsequently, by the Rules of 2013, which are pari materia with the earlier Rules in so far as the provisions relevant to the present controversy are concerned. The colonizer licence granted in favour of the petitioner and the rights and obligations flowing therefrom are, therefore, required to be examined in the light of the provisions of the Rules of 2013. The relevant provision, namely Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2013, which has a direct bearing on the issue involved in the present case, is reproduced as under:- “10 (2) If for any reason whatsoever, instead of transferring land according to sub-rule (1) within the residential colony, the colonizer offers to transfer and at an alternate location, he may do so subject to the following conditions :- (a) The land offered must be suitable for construction houses for the economically weaker sections, to the satisfaction of the Municipal Officer; (b)The land offered must be within the Municipal limits; (c)The land offered must be within a radial distance of not more than two kilometres from the boundary of the residential colony :Provided that the land offered must have land-use of ''residential" in the Master Plan and it must have a clear approach road. 9 (d)The total value of the land offered must match the value of fifteen percent of the land in the residential colony : Provided that in no case shall the area of land offered must be less than the area of land prescribed under Section 292-B, the colonizer would transfer under sub- rule (1);” 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was granted a colonizer's licence dated 31.10.2012 subject to certain conditions. Pursuant to the said licence, the petitioner developed a residential colony over land bearing Khasra Nos. 1108/1, 1109/2, 1090, 1087 and 1107/2 situated in Tahsil and District Mungeli, which stood recorded and diverted in the name of the petitioner/colonizer. Under the terms and conditions of the colonizer's licence, the petitioner was obliged to reserve plots for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and, upon completion of the development, to transfer the said EWS plots in favour of the Municipal Council so that they could be allotted to eligible beneficiaries. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner applied for issuance of a completion certificate and release of the mortgaged land reserved for EWS purposes. According to the petitioner, a completion certificate dated 23.12.2015 was issued whereby the LIG plots comprised in Khasra No.1087, Plot Nos. 62 to 80, and Khasra No.1106/11, Plot Nos. 20 to 26 and 37 to 39, along with the mortgaged land pertaining to Khasra Nos.1090 and 1106/8, were released and permission 10 was granted to sell the same. Relying upon the said completion certificate, the petitioner sold the land reserved for the EWS category. Thereafter, when notices were issued by the respondent authorities alleging non-transfer of the EWS land, the petitioner replied that, in view of the permission granted under the completion certificate dated 23.12.2015, the said land had already been sold and, therefore, no question of transferring the same in favour of the Municipal Council survived. Consequently, the impugned order came to be passed directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed of the EWS land in favour of the Municipal Council, failing which criminal proceedings by way of registration of an F.I.R. would be initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application offering alternate residential land in terms of Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2013, stating that the said land is situated within two kilometres of the colony and is of equivalent value as required under the Rules. 8. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the State and the Municipal Council, it appears that the document dated 23.12.2015 is disputed and, according to the respondents, the same was never issued by the competent authority and is not a genuine document. At the same time, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has already sold the plots earmarked for the EWS category to third parties and, as on date, no EWS plots exist in the petitioner's colony. In such circumstances, even if 11 the petitioner is now directed to execute the sale deed of the original EWS plots in favour of the Municipal Council, no useful purpose would be served. On the contrary, Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 2013 contemplates transfer of alternate residential land situated within two kilometres of the colony, subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed therein. 9. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and equity, the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 is set aside. The respondent- Municipal Council is directed to consider the petitioner's proposal for transfer of alternate land in lieu of the EWS land in accordance with Rule 10(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013. If, upon verification, the land offered by the petitioner is found not to satisfy the requirements of the said Rule, the respondent-Municipal Council shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 16.07.2026 13.08.2026. -- 14.08.2026