1 CGHC010044822022 2026:CGHC:40418 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 716 of 2022 1 - Shrikant Agrawal S/o Late Om Prakash Agrawal Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Near Oswal Complex, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector District Koria, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer, (R), Manendragarh District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nazul Officer, Manendragarh District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Tasauvar Ali @ Parvej Ali S/o Late Manuvar Ali Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Tahsildar Manendragah, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Municipal Council Manendragarh, Through Its Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council Manendragarh, Distt - Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 2 --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1098 of 2022 1 - Tasauwar Ali @ Parvez S/o Late Munnawar Ali Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 6, Manendragarh, Police Station And Tehsil Manendragarh, District Baikunthpur Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Baikunthpur, District Baikunthpur Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Cum Nazul Officer, Manendragarh, District Baikunthpur Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Tehsildar, Manendragarh, District Baikunthpur Korea, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Shrikant Agrawal S/o Late Omprakash Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years R/o Near Ostwal Bahwan, New Vegetable Market, District Korea Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State :- Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. 3 For Respondent No. 5:- Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 7:- Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. Both the petitions involve identical issues and are, therefore, being decided by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 716 of 2022 (Shrikant Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) is taken as the lead case, and the reliefs sought therein are reproduced hereinbelow: “I direct respondents to allot the Nazul Plot no. 155 Rakba 5000 square feet situated at Manendragarh Mohalla, Distt. Koriya in favour of the petitioner. II direct the respondents to put the Nazul Plot no. 155 Rakba 5000 square feet situated at Manendragarh Mohalla, in auction. III direct the respondent to hear petitioner and respondent III no. 5 analogously for allotment. IV Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be granted and the cost of the petitioner may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled to consideration of their respective claims in accordance with the scheme framed by the State Government in respect of the subject 4 land. It is submitted that, as per Point No. 5 of the relevant order-sheet, where two or more applications are received for allotment, the allotment is required to be made through auction, and the petitioners have expressed their willingness to participate in such auction. Learned counsel further submits that the proceedings arising out of the rival claims ought to have been considered together and decided analogously. However, despite the petitioners' willingness to participate in the auction, the respondents have neither conducted the auction nor followed the procedure prescribed under the scheme and are proceeding to allot the subject property in favour of respondent No. 5. It is further submitted that, simultaneously, proceedings for removal of the petitioners from the subject land have been initiated, including the order dated 11.11.2021 and notice/order dated 21.02.2022, notwithstanding the fact that proceedings for settlement of the land and grant of Bhumiswami rights had already been initiated under the State Government's scheme dated 11.09.2019 and the relevant Revenue Book Circular. According to learned counsel, the said proceedings have substantially progressed and the final order could not be passed on account of the interim order operating in the matter. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are in possession of the subject Nazul land and had applied for settlement/grant of Bhumiswami rights under the applicable scheme. It is contended that respondent No. 5 is not in possession of the subject land and that his objection before the revenue authorities had already been rejected. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents ought not to proceed with eviction while the petitioners' claims for settlement/grant of 5 Bhumiswami rights are under consideration. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents, particularly respondent No. 6, is arbitrary and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the scheme. It is contended that the respondents cannot, on the one hand, initiate proceedings for settlement of the land in accordance with the Government scheme and, on the other hand, seek to dispossess the petitioners before the said proceedings attain finality. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders and proceedings relating to allotment as well as eviction are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the applicable scheme, and the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the petitioners' claims in accordance with law, including by conducting an auction if so required where competing applications for allotment have been received. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the prayer made by the petitioners, submits that the scheme dated 13.09.2019, under which the petitioners seek allotment/settlement of the subject land, has already been withdrawn by the State Government vide notification dated 23.07.2024. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners for allotment of the subject land under the said scheme cannot be granted. Learned State counsel further submits that, in any event, neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 5 can claim allotment of the subject land as a matter of right, particularly when both have submitted their respective claims/applications in respect of the same piece of land. It is submitted that the same parcel of land cannot be allotted in favour of both the 6 competing claimants and, therefore, no direction for allotment in favour of either of them can be issued in the present proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council, Manendragarh submits that the subject land belongs to the Municipal Council, Manendragarh and, therefore, the petitioner's claim seeking allotment of the said land cannot be entertained. It is further submitted that, in W.P.(C) No. 1098 of 2022, the petitioner has not impleaded the Municipal Council, Manendragarh as a party respondent. Learned counsel further submits that, in W.P.(C) No. 716 of 2022, although the Municipal Council has been impleaded and is represented before this Court, it has already been specifically submitted that the subject land belongs to the Municipal Council. Consequently, the subject land cannot be allotted to either of the private parties in the manner sought in the present petitions. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the scheme dated 13.09.2019, under which the petitioners seek allotment/settlement of the subject land, has subsequently been withdrawn by the State Government vide notification dated 23.07.2024, this Court is of the view that the reliefs sought by the petitioners for allotment of the subject land under the said scheme cannot be granted. 7 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council, Manendragarh has submitted that the subject land belongs to the Municipal Council. In view of the said submission, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue any direction for allotment of the subject land in favour of either of the private parties in the present proceedings. 9. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 716 of 2022 as well as respondent No. 5 therein to approach the competent authority by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with law, if they seek allotment/lease of the subject land from the Municipal Council, Manendragarh. In the event such an application is filed, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law and the applicable rules/scheme. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respective claims of the parties, and the competent authority shall consider any such application independently, in accordance with law. 11. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha