1 CGHC010004652023 2026:CGHC:37580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 249 of 2023 1 - Shiv Griha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Kourinbhanta, District Rajnandgaon Through Its President Ravindra Singh Aged About 49 Years, S/o Late B.R. Singh R/o New Shiv Colony, Near Shitla Mandir, Kourinbhanta, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Nagriya Prashasan Avam Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.24 15:34:33 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble court may direct the respondents authority to release/return the land admeasuring 15 % of land that comes to 0.45 acres = 19740 square feet=1833.90 square meter from Khasra Number 412/7, 412/8, 412/9, 412/10, 414/3 Rakba 3.06 acres situated at Kourinbhata, Rajnandgaon) in favour of the petitioner on payment of Shelter fee by the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to pay the compensation of the land admeasuring 0.45 acres=19740 square feet=1833.90 square meter of above land at the rate of present market value as per the Distt. Valuer Committee, Rajnandagaon to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems 6t and proper under the facts and circumstances o the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner-Society, registered under the Chhattisgarh Sahakari Samiti Adhiniyam, 1960, was established with the object of providing residential accommodation to its members. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 granted development and colonizer licences to the petitioner in the year 1995 for development of a residential colony over the land in question, wherein 15% of the total land was reserved for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). The petitioner further states that, under Rule 10(8) of the Chhattisgarh Nagarpalika (Colonizer Ka Rajistrikaran Nirbandh Tatha Sharte) Niyam, 1998, if the land reserved for EWS was not allotted to eligible persons within two years, the same was liable to be returned to the colonizer on payment of the prescribed shelter fee. Despite completion of the colony and repeated applications for 3 issuance of the development/completion certificate and release of the EWS land, the respondents did not take necessary action. Subsequently, the Development Work Completion Certificate was issued to the petitioner on 05.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking return of the 15% EWS land on payment of the prescribed shelter fee, relying upon the applicable rules and orders passed by this Court in similar matters. According to the petitioner, despite repeated representations, the respondents neither released the EWS land in its favour nor paid compensation corresponding to the prevailing market value of the land. The petitioner, therefore, claims entitlement either to release of the reserved land upon payment of the prescribed shelter fee or, in the alternative, to compensation at the prevailing market value, and has approached this Court alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in neither releasing the land reserved for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in favour of the petitioner nor paying compensation at the prevailing market value is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and contrary to the applicable statutory provisions. He further submits that the petitioner's claim is required to be considered with reference to the rules prevailing at the relevant time, when the colony was developed, and that the subsequent amendments to the rules cannot defeat the rights accrued to the petitioner under the then 4 existing provisions. He also submits that the applicable rules cast an obligation upon the respondents to take appropriate steps with regard to the EWS land and provide for return/release of the land to the colonizer upon payment of the prescribed shelter fee, particularly where the land has not been allotted to any eligible person. It is contended that, to the petitioner's knowledge, no allotment of the land reserved for the EWS category has been made in favour of any person and, therefore, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the prescribed shelter fee for release of the said land in its favour. Alternatively, he submits that, if the land cannot be returned, the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation at the prevailing market value. He further contends that the respondents cannot defeat the petitioner's claim by taking shelter of the subsequent rules so as to frustrate the benefit intended under the earlier statutory provisions, and that the impugned inaction of the respondents is also violative of the petitioner's rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prays that the respondents may be directed to release the EWS land in favour of the petitioner upon payment of the prescribed shelter fee or, in the alternative, to pay compensation in accordance with the prevailing market value of the land. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the answering respondents have been impleaded only as formal parties in the present writ petition, as the reliefs sought by the 5 petitioner and the allegations made in the petition are primarily directed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the competent authorities concerned with the action under challenge. Since no specific relief has been sought against the answering respondents and no specific allegation is attributable to them, no separate or detailed reply is warranted on their behalf; however, any allegation, if construed to be made against the answering respondents, is emphatically denied. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have already filed their reply explaining and defending the action impugned in the present proceedings. The answering respondents have thus been impleaded merely as formal parties and have no independent role in the matter. The petition, insofar as it seeks to fasten any liability upon the answering respondents, is misconceived and devoid of merit and, being unsupported by the record, deserves to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has sought relief on the basis of rules which were not applicable to the petitioner's case. It is submitted that permission for development of the colony was granted to Shivgrah Nirman Samiti on 10.02.1995 for a total area of 3.06 acres. Under the policy governing the colony at the relevant time, 15% of the land earmarked for the weaker income group was to be made available to the Slum Clearance Board or the organisation designated by the Government, and in the 6 present case 19,740 sq. ft. of land was accordingly vested in the Slum Clearance Board, against which the colonizer was to receive the equivalent amount calculated on the land purchase price prevailing at the relevant time. It is further submitted that although the petitioner subsequently applied for completion of the colony, the work was not completed within the stipulated period, necessitating issuance of notices by the Municipal Corporation, and the work completion certificate was ultimately issued only on 05.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation seeking release of the 15% land reserved for the weaker income group, relying upon the decision in WPC No. 2045/2014. However, the said decision related to a colony governed by the Colonizer Rules, 1998, whereas the petitioner's colony was sanctioned in 1995 under the rules then prevailing, under which the petitioner was entitled only to payment at the then-prevailing market rate and not to release of the reserved land in the manner now claimed. He next submits that the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the subsequent Colonizer Rules, 1998, or seek to apply the same retrospectively to a colony which was sanctioned under the earlier regime. The applicable statutory framework has subsequently undergone changes, and under the Colonizer Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, including the amendment brought into force on 13.09.2023, a mechanism has been prescribed for dealing with land reserved for the weaker income group, including re-acquisition by the colonizer subject to payment as prescribed 7 and fulfillment of the conditions relating to preparation of the layout and development and sale of the plots/buildings/flats to persons belonging to the weaker income group. Rule 17 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013 further provides for continuation of actions taken under the repealed rules, subject to their consistency with the corresponding provisions of the Rules, 2013. Thus, the petitioner has no vested right to seek release of the reserved land contrary to the statutory scheme presently governing the matter. The action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is in accordance with law, and no arbitrariness or illegality is made out. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the colonizer’s licence was granted way back in the year 1995. Thereafter, the petitioner started construction after obtaining due permission and completed the said construction way back in the year 2002. However, the completion certificate could not be issued to the petitioner despite repeated applications filed by him. Upon minute appreciation of the relevant documents, it appears that on 30.04.2002 itself, an application regarding grant of completion certificate was filed, but the same was not issued. Ultimately, the petitioner again filed an application on 25.07.2022 for grant of completion certificate, upon which the concerned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, 8 Rajnandgaon (C.G.), categorically issued the completion certificate stating that vide order dated 10.02.1995, the petitioner had been granted permission for development work in respect of the development of the colony, which had been completed, and accordingly, the completion certificate was issued on 05.09.2022. There is no document on record to show that the petitioner- Society had not completed the development work prior to coming into force of the amended Rules of the State of Chhattisgarh, which came into force on 14.07.2006, and that the matter was kept pending thereafter. Subsequently, another notification dated 26.03.2007 was issued, whereby sub-Rules (1) and (2) of Rule 10 were substituted with a new set of Rules. From the perusal of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Registration of Coloniser, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 (for short, ‘Rules’), it appears that the case of the petitioner will not be governed by the amended Rules and that the case of the petitioner would be governed by the previous Rules of 1998. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is required to be decided in respect of the E.W.S. land in accordance with the Rules applicable prior to coming into force of the new amended Rules of 1998, which came into force from 26.03.2007. Accordingly, the respondent-Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compensation in respect of the land admeasuring 0.45 acres, equivalent to 19,740 square feet or 1,833.90 square metres, at the rate of the present market value as determined by the District Valuer Committee, 9 Rajnandgaon, in favour of the petitioner, in view of the order dated 08.08.2012 passed in WPC No. 6274/2011 and other connected matters, wherein the same issue had been raised and decided in the following manner: “2. All the petitioners are colonizers and have developed colonies within the area of Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon. In W.P.(C) No. 6274/2011 petitioner has made statement in para 8.2 of the writ petition that he has developed the colony on 04/04/2000 whereas in W.P.(C) No. 139/2012 the permission for developing the colony was granted on 15/10/2003 and in W.P.(C) No. 140/2012 such permission was granted on 09/05/2005. In all the writ petitions the projected dispute is about leaving the area for Economic Weaker Section i.e. E.W.S. or payment of shelter fee in lieu of said area. 3. The issue concerning registration of colonizer, its terms and condition within a Municipal area is governed by the Chhattisgarh Nagar Palika (Registration of Coloniser, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998(for short ‘Rules’) and undisputedly all the petitioners are registered as colonizers under the said Rules, Rule 10 of the said Rules makes provision for availability of plots/houses for the weaker section of the Society in the residential colonies. Though, the said Rule was amended by the Government of Chhattisgarh firstly on 14.07.2006, however, the said amendment were kept in abeyance by another notification issued on 26th March, 2007 and thereafter a fresh amendment was incorporated on 25.07.2008 substituting sub-Rule (1) & (2) of Rule 10 with a new set of Rules. 4. After raising arguments learned counsel for the petitioners would agree that the case of the petitioners 10 would be governed by the unamended Rules to which learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation do not raise any dispute. 5. In view of the above, since the issue of applicability of Rules is no longer an issue in dispute, nothing survives of adjudication and it is expected that the Municipal Corporation shall decide the matter concerning E.W.S. land and shelter fee in accordance with the Rules applicable, as agreed by the respondent corporation, on the date when the respective petitioners were granted permission to develop the colony.” 7. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju