1 CGHC010095012023 2026:CGHC:35649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1385 of 2023 1 - Shatruhan Dani S/o Late Shri Radheshyam Dani Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Maruti Ward, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administrative And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Block - D, 4th Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Developmetn Department, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parishad Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Amrito Das, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Shashank Mehta, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 5 :- Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 12.08.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the orders dated 23.02.2022 and 28.04.2022, whereby his claim for grant of approval/permission for construction of a shop over the land allotted to him under the rehabilitation scheme has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby his appeal preferred under Section 307 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act has been rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner has further sought appropriate directions to the respondent-authorities to grant necessary approval/permission for construction of the shop over the land allotted to him and to take consequential action in accordance with law. The petitioner has also raised a grievance regarding the earnest money of Rs.3,88,458/- deposited by him in pursuance of the allotment. 2. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- 3 “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records and proceeding of appellate authority pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ to the respondent authorities and set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P/ 16) passed by respondent no.5 or may kindly remand the matter before appellate authority for proper decision on merits in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ to the respondent authorities and set aside the impugned orders dated 23.02.2022 and 28.04.2022 (Annexure P/15) passed by respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had sought allotment of the land in question on lease from the Municipal Council, Kawardha, for which he had deposited the requisite amount of Rs.3,88,458/-. Thereafter, the concerned authorities initiated proceedings for consideration of the petitioner’s claim and submitted the proposal for obtaining the requisite approval of the State Government. The said proposal was rejected on the ground that prior permission of the State Government was required and that such permission had not been obtained. It is further submitted that, on account of the aforesaid procedural lapse, the Municipal Council passed the orders dated 4 28.04.2022 and 23.02.2023 rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the ground that approval of the State Government had not been obtained. Learned counsel submits that the Municipal Council ought to have first obtained the requisite prior permission/approval from the State Government before initiating the proceedings for allotment of the land. Since that procedure was not followed, the State Government rejected the proposal vide order dated 23.02.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, instead of rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the aforesaid technical ground, the Municipal Council ought to have initiated appropriate proceedings and addressed a proposal to the State Government seeking approval for grant of the land in question on lease in favour of the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders dated 28.04.2022 and 23.02.2023 are not in accordance with law and deserve to be set aside, with a direction to the Municipal Council to take appropriate steps for obtaining the requisite approval of the State Government in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Council submits that the proposal for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner had already been rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 28.04.2023. Consequently, in view of the rejection of the proposal, the Municipal Council was required to pass the consequential order in accordance with law, which has accordingly been done. It is, therefore, submitted that no illegality or infirmity can be attributed to the impugned orders passed by the Municipal Council. 5 5. Learned State counsel submits that the order dated 23.02.2022 was passed by the State Government rejecting the proposal, and therefore, in the absence of prior approval of the State Government, the Municipal Council could not have initiated or proceeded with the process for grant of lease in favour of the petitioner. It is, accordingly, submitted that the action of the Municipal Council is in accordance with the decision of the competent authority and does not warrant interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record, it appears that there was a procedural defect in the manner in which the requisite approval of the State Government was sought. The Municipal Council ought to have obtained the prior approval of the competent authority before initiating the proceedings for grant of the land in question on lease in favour of the petitioner. However, the Municipal Council proceeded with the matter without obtaining such prior approval, which ultimately resulted in rejection of the proposal by the State Government. 8. In view of the aforesaid procedural infirmity, the consequential orders dated 28.04.2022 and 23.02.2023 cannot be sustained in their present form. Accordingly, the said orders are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. The respondent-Municipal Council is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh and seek the requisite prior approval of 6 the competent authority/State Government in accordance with law before proceeding further with the petitioner’s claim for grant of the land in question on lease. In case such approval is granted by the competent authority, the Municipal Council shall thereafter take appropriate consequential action in respect of the land sought by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the petitioner’s ultimate entitlement to grant of lease, and the same shall remain subject to the decision of the competent authority in accordance with law. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in above terms. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha