1 2026:CGHC:15954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 74 of 2021 1 - Hanuman Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Shyam Lal Sharma Aged About 53 Years R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Nazul Officer Raigarh , District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Anuradha Agrawal R/o Behind Shreshtha Hotel, City Kotwali, Bhagwanpur , Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the case pertaining to allotment of land in question may be called for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the impugned Auction Notice dated 11/12/2020 24-26/12/2020 and further auction process for allotment of land in favour of Respondent No.5 may be quashed. 10.3 That, the respondents may be directed to conduct fresh allotment process in accordance with the directions issued by the State Government on 11/09/2019, 28/10/2019 and provisions of RPC issued from time to time for allotment of Government/Nazul lands in favour of third parties. 10.4 That, the respondents be directed to consider the application for allotment as submitted by the petitioner for allotment on lease, the land in question as per the prevalent directions/guidelines by the State Government.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner, a businessman residing at the address mentioned above in the urban area of District Raigarh (C.G.), submits that the State Government, vide its policy decision dated 11.09.2019, issued guidelines for the 3 allotment of Government/Nazul lands on lease for a specified period upon fixation of annual premium, which were further amended on 28.10.2019. As per the said guidelines, Government/Nazul lands could be allotted to private persons on payment of yearly rent, and in terms of Clause 1 thereof, in urban areas, land up to 7500 sq. ft. could be allotted by the Collector within prescribed limits, whereas land exceeding 7500 sq. ft. could only be allotted on lease by the State Government, along with other conditions including allotment through auction; that the land in question, situated in Nazul Sheet Bhagwanpur, Plot No. 34/2, admeasuring 22,927 sq. ft. in the urban area of District Raigarh, falls within the category requiring allotment by the State Government, and the petitioner, being desirous of obtaining the said land on lease, submitted applications before Respondent No.1, which were not considered that the petitioner was thereafter constrained to file Writ Petition W.P.(C) No. 2475 of 2020 before this Hon’ble Court, which vide order dated 20.10.2020 directed the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application within 90 days, that despite submission of the said order before Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4, no steps were taken to comply with the same that instead, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in violation of the aforesaid guidelines, issued an impugned auction notice for disposal of the land measuring 22,927 sq. ft. by fixing an upset price of Rs. 1,47,60,900/-, even though such power of allotment vested with the State Government and not the Collector, and further delegated 4 such power to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), who issued an open auction notice dated 11.12.2020, which was not properly publicized but merely affixed outside the office; that upon learning of the same, the petitioner immediately submitted a complaint before the State Government, which, taking cognizance, directed Respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry and submit a report vide letter dated 26.12.2020, however, despite such directions, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 proceeded with the auction by issuing a fresh notice dated 24–26.12.2020 and ultimately conducted the auction on 31.12.2020, confirming the same in favour of respondent No.5 that the petitioner came to know about the said auction through newspaper publications, and despite seeking copies of the auction proceedings and submitting representations for cancellation of the illegal auction, the authorities failed to furnish the documents or take any action thereon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of policy dated 11.9.2019 he is applied for settlement of a piece of land situated in Nazul Sheet, Bhagwanpur, Plot No. 34/2 admeasuring 22,927 sq. ft in urban area of District-Raigarh and that application has not been considered and it is lying pending for consideration before the concerned authorities and as such he is praying this Court to direct the concerned respondent authorities to consider the application for allotment as submitted by the petitioner for allotement on lease, the land in question as per the prevalent directions/ guidelines by the State Government. 5 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that the land in question, for which the petitioner has sought allotment by way of an application, has already been put to public auction by the competent authority, and pursuant to the said auction process, respondent No. 5 emerged as the highest bidder and has been allotted the said land in accordance with law. It is further submitted that although the allotment has been made in favour of respondent No. 5, the same has not yet attained finality on account of the interim stay order dated 13.01.2021 passed by the competent court/authority, which has temporarily restrained the finalization of the allotment proceedings; however, the rights of respondent No. 5 arising out of the auction process continue to subsist, subject to the outcome of the present proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the land in question, for which the petitioner is seeking settlement, has already been subjected to a duly conducted public auction by the competent authority, and in the said auction process, respondent No. 5 emerged as the successful bidder and has accordingly been allotted the said land in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It is further contended that in view of such allotment through a transparent auction process, the claim of the petitioner for settlement over the same land is untenable and devoid of merit. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 6 material available on record. 7. From a perusal of the record, it appears that a dispute exists with regard to the allotment of the land in question. According to the petitioner, the concerned authorities lacked the jurisdiction and authority to conduct the auction of the said land, particularly in view of the fact that the policy under which such auction is stated to have been conducted, namely the policy dated 11.09.2019, has subsequently been cancelled by the State Government. In light of the cancellation of the said policy, neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 5 can assert any enforceable right or claim arising out of the alleged auction proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the concerned respondent authorities are directed to reconsider and decide the claims of both parties afresh, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat