1 2026:CGHC:15592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 187 of 2021 1 - Tapan Biswas S/o Haripad Biswas Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 01, Subhash Nagar, Boirdadar, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of C.G. Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector, Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Najul Officer Raigarh District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 To kindly call for entire records of the case. 10.2 To kindly quash the auction in respect of khasra number 290/1 beladula of the piece of land admeasuring 744 square feet. 10.3 To kindly order that the collector may decide the application of the Petitioner for grant of bhumiswami status as per the notification of the State Government. 10.4 Any other relief which this court deems fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner’s grandmother, Late Smt. Mukul Rani Vishwas, wife of Harendra Nath Vishwas, had migrated to Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (then part of Madhya Pradesh) and was duly rehabilitated by the State in the year 1982 under the prevailing rehabilitation policy, whereby she was allotted a parcel of land admeasuring 1000 square feet situated in Khasra No. 290/2, Beladula, Raigarh. It is submitted that the petitioner, along with several other similarly situated refugees, was rehabilitated on the said land and was provided with gumtis and residential structures, from which they have been earning their livelihood since allotment. The relevant order of rehabilitation along with the 3 maintenance khasra pertaining to Khasra No. 290/2, evidencing the allotment in favour of the petitioner’s grandmother. It is further submitted that over a period of time, the petitioner raised additional construction admeasuring approximately 500 square feet, a portion of which allegedly extended into adjoining Khasra No. 290/1. Subsequently, in light of Notifications dated 11 September 2019 and 26 October 2019, the petitioner preferred an application dated 12.10.2020 seeking conferment of bhumiswami rights over a total area of 1500 square feet in Khasra No. 290/2, Beladula, Raigarh, upon payment of the requisite premium, however, it is humbly submitted that due to inadvertence, the petitioner did not distinctly disclose that 500 square feet of the said construction fell in Khasra No. 290/1 and instead mentioned the aggregate area of 1500 square feet under Khasra No. 290/2. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s father, and thereafter the petitioner himself, have remained in continuous, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of the said property since its original allotment. However, the petitioner was shocked to learn through a newspaper publication dated 11th January, 2021 that land admeasuring 744 square feet in Khasra No. 290/1 was proposed to be auctioned by the respondents. The petitioner submits that no notice of the proposed auction was ever served upon him, and upon making inquiries at the Najul Office, he came to know that his occupied land was, in fact, being affected by the said auction proceedings, thereby seriously prejudicing his rights and interests. 4 Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed auction of the plot bearing Khasra No. 290/1 situated at Beladula, Raigarh, admeasuring 744 square feet, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in continuous, peaceful possession of the said property for more than 38 years and has been residing therein and earning his livelihood from the same, therefore, any attempt to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law and without affording an opportunity of hearing, by way of auction, is per se arbitrary and violative of settled legal principles. It is also submitted that the petitioner had already preferred an application dated 12.10.2020 before the competent authority seeking conferment of bhumiswami rights in terms of the relevant State Government notification, which remains pending and has not been adjudicated, however, despite the pendency of the said application and without considering the petitioner’s legitimate claim and preferential right to purchase, the respondents are proceeding with the auction of the property in question. In these circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned auction proceedings in respect of the aforesaid land and further direct the Collector to expeditiously consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of bhumiswami status in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the 5 question of grant of Bhumiswami rights does not arise in the present case, inasmuch as the petitioner has never been granted any patta or lease in respect of the land in question, and therefore, cannot claim any such right under the applicable provisions of law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner may approach before the concerned Collector by submitting a fresh application/representation. It is further directed that, upon such filing, the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the matter by passing an appropriate and reasoned order, taking into account both the earlier representation dated 12.10.2020 and the fresh representation submitted by the petitioner, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat