1 2026:CGHC:7439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER RESERVED ON 11.11.2025 ORDER DELIVERED ON 10.02.2026 ORDER UPLOADED ON 10.02.2026 WPC No. 4934 of 2022 1 - Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Sajan Kumar Agrawal, Aged About 52 Years R/o Shop No. 12 Sector II, Zone -2 Old Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - District Trade And Industry Centre Through Chief General Manager, Durg Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Director, Directorate Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1 Ravigram, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 2 WPC No. 4187 of 2022 1 - Shri Krishna Industries Through Karamjeet Singh Bedi (Partner) Aged 50 Years R/o 69/9, Nehru Nagar (West) Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretory, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Department Of Industries, Atal Nagar Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Director Directorate Of Industries Udyog Bhawan Ring Road No.1 Ravigram Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief General Manager District Trade And Industries Centre Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ajay Industries Through Prop Ajay Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Sajan Kumar Agarwal Aged 44 Years, R/o Office Gat Shop No. 12, Sector Ii, Zone-2, Khursipar, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4562 of 2023 Ajay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Sajan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o Shop No 12 Sector 2, Zone-2 Old Khursipar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) 3 2 - The Director Directorate Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan Ring Road No. 1 Ravigram, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Trade And Industry Centre Through Chief General Manager, Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Joon Chaudhary, Sr. Advocte through VC assisted by Shri Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate in WPC Nos. 4934 of 2022 and 4562 of 2022,Shri Anurag Jha, Advocate in WPC No. 4187 of 2022. For Respondent(s) : Shri Praveen Das, Dy.AG and Shri Ajit Singh, GA for the State/respondent in all the petitions and Ms. Joon Chaudhary, Sr. Advocte through VC assisted by Shri Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate in WPC No.4187 of 2022. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) C A V Order The present batch of writ petitions arise out of a common dispute relating to allotment, fixation of premium, execution and subsequent cancellation of lease in respect of Industrial Plot No. 19/C situated in Heavy Industrial Area, Bhilai, District Durg. 2. Since the issues involved in all the petitions are interlinked and stem from the same series of administrative actions taken by the respondent authorities, the petitions are being heard and decided by this common order, treating W.P.(C) No. 4934 of 2022 as the leading case. (i) Facts relating to (W.P.(C) No. 4934 of 2022 4 3. The petitioner applied for allotment of industrial land before the District Trade and Industry Centre on 12.10.2011. In the priority/waiting list prepared by the competent authority, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1, whereas M/s Satna Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd. was placed at Serial No. 9. Subsequently, by order dated 28.12.2015, the applications of the petitioner and other applicants, including M/s Satna Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd., were rejected. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016 before this Court. M/s Satna Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd. also filed W.P(C) No. 2222 of 2015. During pendency of the proceedings, on the initiative of the Trade and Industry Department, M/s Satna Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd. withdrew its writ petition on 02.12.2020, whereafter the respondent authorities executed a lease deed in its favour on 25.01.2021 at the rate of ₹8 lakhs per hectare. 5. Thereafter, by order dated 12.04.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016, this Court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground of parity with M/s Satna Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd. and similarly situated units. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities issued a letter dated 01.09.2022 directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹3,48,566/-, which was duly deposited. Consequently, a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 06.09.2022 at the rate of ₹8 lakhs per hectare, and possession of the plot was handed over. 5 6. Subsequently, the respondent authorities issued a demand notice dated 09.11.2022 directing the petitioner to deposit an additional amount of ₹93,16,344/- within a week, failing which the lease deed was liable to be cancelled. Challenging the aforesaid demand notice dated 09.11.2022, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No. 4934 of 2022, which is the leading case in the present batch. 7. The dispute also has its genesis in earlier proceedings, including W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016 and subsequent administrative actions taken by the respondent authorities, which have a direct bearing on the controversy involved in the present batch of petitions. Further, issues relating to cancellation of lease and subsequent orders passed by the authorities are subject matter of connected writ petitions, which are being considered along with the present petition. (ii) Facts relating to WP(C) no. 4187 of 2022 8. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4187 of 2022, M/s Shri Krishna Industries, was earlier allotted the industrial unit/plot No. 19/C by the respondent authorities vide order dated 16.01.2020, for a consideration of approximately ₹90,74,420/-, which amount was deposited by the petitioner in accordance with the demand raised. 9. Subsequently, the respondent authorities cancelled the allotment/lease of the said industrial unit on 23.06.2020, allegedly on the ground of pendency of litigation, despite the petitioner having complied with all financial and procedural requirements. Thereafter, in the year 2022, the same industrial unit/plot No. 19/C was treated as 6 vacant land and was allotted to M/s Ajay Industries at a substantially lower rate of approximately ₹8,28,566/-, resulting, according to the petitioner, in loss of revenue to the State and arbitrary exercise of power. 10. Alleging mala fide, colourable exercise of power and illegal conversion of an industrial unit into “Bhukhand” (vacant land) on paper, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 4187 of 2022, challenging the said allotment. (iii) Facts Relating to W.P.(C) No. 4562 Of 2023 : 11. Pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016, the petitioner M/s Ajay Industries submitted a representation and affidavit expressing willingness to accept allotment on parity at the rate of ₹8 lakhs per hectare. 12. The respondent authorities issued a demand letter dated 01.09.2022, directing the petitioner to deposit a balance amount of ₹3,48,566/-, which was duly deposited. Thereafter, a registered lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was executed in favour of the petitioner for Plot No. 19/C, admeasuring 1,01,378 sq. ft., and possession was handed over. The petitioner commenced development and invested substantial amounts towards establishment of the industrial unit. 13. However, after execution of the lease deed, the respondent authorities issued a demand notice dated 09.11.2022, calling upon the petitioner to pay an additional amount of ₹93,18,344/-, on the ground of “prevailing rate”. 7 14. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said demand by filing W.P.(C) No. 4934 of 2022, wherein an interim conditional order dated 18.11.2022 was passed. During pendency of the proceedings, the respondent authorities cancelled the lease deed on 21.02.2023, which cancellation was affirmed by an appellate order dated 28.04.2023. 15. Challenging the cancellation of lease and consequential actions, the petitioner filed the present W.P.(C) No. 4562 of 2023. Thus, all three writ petitions revolve around the same industrial plot/unit No. 19/C, conflicting allotments, cancellations and re- allotments, fixation of lease premium at different rates, and allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, and colourable exercise of power by the respondent authorities. 16. Since the issues are interconnected and stem from the same series of administrative actions, the petitions are being heard and decided together by a common order. SUBMISSION IN WPC NO. 4934 OF 2022 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WPC No. 4934 of 2022 submits as follows: I. Genesis of the Claim The petitioner, a bona fide entrepreneur, had applied for allotment of industrial land in the Heavy Industrial Area, Bhilai, District Durg. As per the priority/waiting list published by the Industries Department dated 28.12.2015 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner stood at Serial No.1, thereby acquiring priority for allotment. Despite this, applications 8 including that of the petitioner were rejected, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016. II. Preferential Treatment to Satna Minerals 18. Meanwhile, similarly situated applicant M/s Satna Minerals & Metals Pvt. Ltd. approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2222 of 2015. During pendency of the matter, the Directorate of Industries issued letter dated 13.11.2020 (Annexure P/4) expressing readiness to process allotment in favour of Satna Minerals subject to withdrawal of its writ petition. Acting upon the said assurance, Satna Minerals withdrew the petition and thereafter lease deed was executed on 25.01.2021 at the concessional rate of ₹8 lakh per hectare, copy whereof is filed as Annexure P/6. No similar opportunity was granted to the petitioner at that time despite identical standing. III. Judicial Direction in Petitioner’s Case 19. Subsequently, this Court, by order dated 12.04.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016 (Annexure P/7), directed respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim on parity with Satna Minerals and Vinay Industries. The order clearly acknowledged that petitioner stood on similar footing and deserved consideration accordingly. Relevant portion reads as under: “…..It is found that the petitioner is also on the similar footing. Hence, on this basis, this petition is disposed of. The respondents No.2 to 5 are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner on its own merits in accordance with law within the outer limit of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents are also directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground ofparity similar to the 9 caseof Satna Minerals and Metals Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Vinay Industries…..” Thus, parity was expressly mandated. IV. Issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI) 20. Pursuant to directions of this Hon’ble Court and subsequent processing, the Industries Department issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) vide its No. 6701 dated 01.09.2022 in favour of the petitioner proposing allotment of Plot No. 19/C in Heavy Industrial Area, Bhilai. The LOI specified the Proposed allotment of industrial plot in petitioner’s favour; Area and location details of Plot No. 19/C; Rate applicable consistent with rate granted to similarly situated units; Conditions requiring deposit of prescribed amount and Obligation to execute lease deed upon compliance. Acting upon the LOI, the petitioner complied with all requirements, deposited the demanded amount and proceeded with formalities required for execution of lease deed. The issuance of LOI created legitimate expectation in favour of petitioner and represented formal decision of authorities to allot land. V. Compliance by Petitioner and Execution of Lease 21. Pursuant thereto, petitioner submitted consent affidavit dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P/8). Respondents thereafter issued letter dated 01.09.2022 directing deposit of ₹3,48,566/-, filed as Annexure P/9, which was duly complied with. Lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was thereafter executed in favour of petitioner in respect of Plot No.19/C measuring approximately 1,01,378 sq. ft., at the same concessional rate applicable to Satna Minerals (Annexure P/10), and possession 10 was also handed over. Thus, allotment stood concluded and rights crystallized. VI. Execution of Lease and Delivery of Possession 22. Pursuant to LOI and compliance by the petitioner, respondents issued letter dated 01.09.2022 demanding deposit of ₹3,48,566/- (Annexure P/9), which petitioner duly deposited. The lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was thereafter executed in favour of petitioner (Annexure P/10) at identical concessional rate applicable to Satna Minerals. Possession of plot was also handed over, and allotment thus stood concluded. VII. Subsequent Demand Raised by Authorities 23. Surprisingly, after execution of lease deed, the District Trade & Industry Centre issued impugned demand letter dated 09.11.2022 (Annexure P/11) demanding additional sum of ₹93,18,344/- within seven days, failing which lease would stand cancelled. Said demand was premised upon application of revised prevailing land rate, thereby altering concluded contractual terms. VIII. Directorate Communication Favoring Satna Minerals 24. It is further submitted that Directorate of Industries communication dated 13.11.2020 addressed to District Trade & Industry Centre, Durg (Annexure P/4) shows that despite rejection of applications under Rules of 2015, the Directorate allowed processing of Satna Minerals’ allotment upon withdrawal of litigation. Thus, preferential treatment was extended to Satna Minerals though petitioner was higher in priority. 11 IX. Proceedings Before the Supreme Court 25. Aggrieved by interim orders passed in the present proceedings, petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No. 24103 of 2022. The Apex Court, by order dated 05.01.2023, declined to interfere but granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy before the High Court as permissible in law. Copy of order forms part of record. Thus, petitioner continues to pursue relief before this Court in accordance with liberty granted. It has been observed by the Apex Court as under: “After having heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, learned senior counsel seeks liberty to file further application before the High Court. The petitioner is always at liberty to avail remedy as the law permits to him. In view of above, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.” Thus, though interference was declined, liberty was granted to pursue remedy before this Court. X. Subsequent Proceedings Before High Court 26. The petitioner thereafter filed Review Petition No. 29 of 2023, which was later withdrawn with liberty to pursue remedy in pending writ proceedings. Further Miscellaneous Case (MCC) was filed in connection with interim orders was also disposed of granting liberty to move appropriate application in pending writ petition. Thus, all subsequent proceedings consistently preserved petitioner’s right to pursue relief in present writ petition. 12 XI. Grounds of Challenge 27. The impugned demand notice is arbitrary and discriminatory as similarly situated allottees, particularly, Satna Minerals, were not subjected to such additional demands. After execution of lease deed and handing over possession, respondents are estopped from altering contractual terms unilaterally. The impugned action directly defeats judicial directions requiring parity in treatment. Selective application of revised land rate violates Article 14 of the Constitution. XII. Effect of Concluded Lease 28. Lease deed executed pursuant to judicial direction created vested contractual rights in favour of petitioner. Authorities cannot retrospectively alter agreed consideration after execution and possession. 29. In addition, counsel for the petitioner has put forth that the entire controversy now stands narrowed to the legality of the respondents’ action in revising the rate and cancelling the allotment after issuance of Letter of Intent, execution of lease deed and delivery of possession, which action is wholly impermissible in law. It is an admitted position on record, as reflected in the respondents’ own correspondence dated 13.09.2022, that pursuant to directions of this Court dated 12.04.2022, a Letter of Intent dated 01.09.2022 was issued in favour of the petitioner for allotment of Industrial Plot No. 19(C), admeasuring 1,01,378.5 sq. ft., and thereafter, vide allotment letter dated 06.09.2022, the lease deed was executed between the parties and possession was handed over on the same date. 13 30. Acting upon the concluded allotment, the petitioner immediately took possession and commenced development activities, including construction of industrial sheds and installation of machinery. Loans were availed from financial institutions and substantial investments were made. The allotment thus stood acted upon and crystallized into a concluded contract. 31. Once the lease deed stood executed and possession delivered, the allotting authority became functus officio, and no subsequent administrative authority could lawfully alter the terms of allotment or demand additional amounts at revised rates. Such unilateral alteration strikes at the very root of contractual certainty and administrative fairness. 32. It is further submitted that during pendency of the present proceedings and despite the matter being sub judice, the respondents proceeded to cancel the allotment vide order dated 21.02.2023, allegedly on the ground of non-deposit of the enhanced demand, even though the legality of the demand itself was pending consideration before this Court. Such action demonstrates undue haste and amounts to interference with the judicial process. 33. The petitioner further submits that parity with M/s Satna Minerals & Metals Pvt. Ltd., which formed the foundation of the earlier judicial direction, has been clearly established. 34. It is therefore contended that the impugned demand notice and cancellation order be quashed and the petitioner’s allotment and 14 leasehold rights over Plot No. 19(C) be restored and protected so that the industrial unit may function without further obstruction. 35. It is thus evident that the petitioner’s allotment is not a fresh grant but flows directly from judicial directions and parity principles already recognized by the Courts. The respondents cannot defeat the effect of judicial orders by subsequent administrative manoeuvres. The petitioner submits that the cancellation order and revised demand are therefore arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, contrary to settled principles governing concluded contracts, and in breach of binding judicial directions. Therefore, the impugned demand and consequential cancellation be quashed and the petitioner’s allotment and leasehold rights be protected, enabling the industrial unit to operate without further administrative obstruction. 36. It has been submitted that the entire action of the respondents is vitiated by arbitrariness and unreasonableness and therefore deserves to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seeks for Quashing the impugned demand notice dated 09.11.2022; to Set aside the cancellation order dated 21.02.2023 and all consequential actions; Declare that the lease deed dated 06.09.2022 executed in favour of the petitioner is valid and binding; Direct the respondents not to raise any additional demand from the petitioner contrary to the lease deed and Grant any other relief which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. SUBMISSIONS IN WPC NO. 4187 OF 2022 15 37. Shri Anurag Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPC No.4187 of 2022 submits that the petitioner is a bona fide entrepreneur engaged in industrial activities and had applied for allotment of an industrial unit in the Heavy Industrial Area, Bhilai, in accordance with the applicable rules and policy. He submits that after due evaluation, the competent authority allotted Industrial Unit/Plot No. 19/C to the petitioner and issued allotment letter dated 16.01.2020, fixing the lease premium at ₹90,74,420/- (Annexure P/1) which was duly assessed by the respondent authorities themselves. 38. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner deposited the entire amount as demanded by the competent authority within the stipulated time, and thus fully complied with all the conditions of allotment duly evidenced by official communication dated 23.06.2020 (annexure P/3). It is further submitted that upon compliance of the conditions, a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, and the petitioner acquired a vested and legally enforceable right in respect of the allotted industrial unit. 39. However, despite the petitioner fulfilling all financial obligations, and deposited the entire lease premium, the respondent authorities, with an oblique motive and only to favour respondent No. 5, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 28.06.2020 (Annexure P/2). It is contended that the cancellation order was passed on the pretext of pendency of a writ petition, which had no bearing on the petitioner’s lawful allotment and could not have been a valid ground for cancellation. 16 40. He submits that the cancellation of allotment after a lapse of about six months from the date of allotment, without any breach of conditions by the petitioner, is manifestly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities failed to follow the principles of natural justice and did not afford any meaningful opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before cancelling the allotment. After cancelling the lawful allotment in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities allotted the same Industrial Unit/Plot No. 19/C to respondent no. 5 at a meagre amount of ₹8,28,566/- vide order dated 01.09.2022. It is further submitted that, thereafter, by manipulating facts and circumstances, the industrial unit in question was allotted in favour of respondent No.5 at a substantially lower consideration, thereby causing financial loss to the State exchequer. The allotment order in favour of respondent No.5 is filed as Annexure P/5. 41. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier court order did not direct allotment of the industrial unit to respondent No.5, and a copy of the relevant order is filed as Annexure P/6, demonstrating that the respondents misinterpreted and misapplied judicial directions. 42. It is submitted that the said allotment was made by treating the industrial unit as mere vacant land (“Bhukhand”), whereas in reality the plot was an industrial unit comprising boundary wall, office building and workshop. 43. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the valuation report and policy applicable under the Chhattisgarh Land and Building Management Rules, 2015, the value of the industrial unit was 17 assessed at ₹1,01,46,910/-, and therefore, allotment of the same at ₹8,28,566/- amounts to gross undervaluation. It is argued that such undervaluation has resulted in a revenue loss of approximately ₹83 lakhs to the State of Chhattisgarh and reflects a clear case of manipulation and mala fide exercise of power by the respondent authorities. 44. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have sought to justify their illegal actions by placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016. It is emphatically submitted that this Court never directed allotment of the industrial unit in favour of respondent No. 5. At best, the Court had directed the authorities to consider the matter in accordance with law. He submits that the respondent authorities have deliberately misinterpreted and manipulated the judicial directions to justify the allotment in favour of respondent no. 5, which is impermissible in law. 45. It is next submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were not similarly situated, and therefore, the application of parity was wholly misconceived. He submits that in the case of Satna Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd., a Letter of Intent had been issued in the year 2013, whereas in the case of respondent No. 5, no such Letter of Intent existed, and therefore, the factual and legal circumstances were entirely different. He submits that despite such material differences, the respondent authorities extended undue favour to respondent no. 5, while depriving the petitioner of his lawful allotment. It is argued that 18 such arbitrary and discriminatory treatment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of fairness in State action. 46. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have deliberately manipulated records by describing the industrial unit as vacant land in official documents, with the sole objective of facilitating allotment at a throwaway price to respondent No. 5. It is further submitted that the entire sequence of events clearly demonstrates a colourable exercise of power and a premeditated design to benefit respondent no. 5 at the cost of the petitioner and the State exchequer. He submits that the conduct of the respondent authorities is not only arbitrary but also tainted with mala fides and warrants strict judicial scrutiny. 47. Shri Jha, submits that the petitioner had prepared the industrial project on the allotted land and had made substantial investments in anticipation of running the industrial unit and due to the illegal cancellation of allotment and subsequent allotment in favour of respondent no. 5, the petitioner has suffered irreparable loss, both financially and commercially. He submits that the petitioner has been deprived of his lawful rights without any fault on his part, and therefore, the intervention of this Hon’ble Court is warranted. 48. He further submits that once a lawful allotment had been made in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner had complied with all conditions, the respondent authorities ought not have cancelled the allotment except in accordance with law. It is argued that the cancellation of allotment and subsequent allotment in favour of 19 respondent no. 5 are vitiated by arbitrariness, illegality and procedural impropriety and therefore deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel submits that the actions of the respondents are liable to be struck down on the ground of violation of constitutional principles, statutory rules and binding judicial precedents. SUBMISSIONS IN WPC NO. 4562 OF 2023 49. The present petition assails the orders dated 21.02.2023 and 28.04.2023, passed by the Chief General Manager, District Trade & Industry Centre, Durg, whereby the lease deed executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of Plot No. 19/C has been cancelled solely on the ground of non-payment of an enhanced lease premium subsequently demanded by the authorities. 50. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, a small-scale industrial entrepreneur operating under the name M/s Ajay Industries, had applied for allotment of industrial land as early as 2010 and stood at Serial No.1 in the preferential list, yet allotment was denied while similarly situated applicants were granted land. 51. Upon earlier rejection of petitioner’s application in December 2015, the petitioner approached this Court, and during pendency of litigation, land came to be allotted to M/s Satna Minerals & Metals Pvt. Ltd. at the concessional rate of Rs. 8 lakhs per hectare. On 12.04.2022, this Court disposed of the petitioner’s earlier petition directing the authorities to consider petitioner’s claim in accordance with law and on grounds of parity with Satna Minerals and similarly placed units. 20 52. In compliance thereof, the authorities issued demand dated 01.09.2022, which was duly paid by the petitioner, and thereafter lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was executed in petitioner’s favour at the same concessional rate. Possession of land was delivered and the petitioner commenced industrial construction. However, after conclusion of allotment and execution of lease deed, the department issued a letter dated 09.11.2022, demanding an additional amount of approximately Rs. 93 lakhs based on revised prevailing rates, which was never part of the lease agreement or applicable policy. 53. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 4934 of 2022, wherein this Court, by order dated 18.11.2022, granted conditional interim protection subject to partial deposit of the demanded amount. A Writ Appeal against the said interim order was held not maintainable on 08.12.2022, compelling the petitioner to approach the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition. 54. The Apex Court, by order dated 05.01.2023, disposed of the SLP with liberty to pursue remedies before the High Court, observing: “However, the learned senior counsel seeks liberty to file further application before the High Court. The petitioner is always at liberty to avail remedy as the law permits to him. In view of above, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.” 55. During pendency of proceedings and petitioner’s application for modification of interim order, the respondent authorities proceeded to cancel the lease deed vide order dated 21.02.2023, followed by 21 confirmation order dated 28.04.2023, without proper hearing and in disregard of pending judicial proceedings. She submits that once lease deed stood executed and possession delivered after full compliance of financial obligations, the respondents became functus officio and could not unilaterally revise premium or cancel allotment. The additional demand is discriminatory, arbitrary and contrary to parity granted with Satna Minerals, besides being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is therefore submitted that the impugned cancellation orders are unsustainable in law and deserve to be quashed, restoring the petitioner’s leasehold rights over the industrial plot. 56. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the lease deed had been executed and possession had been delivered, a concluded contract came into existence between the parties. It is submitted that the respondents could not have unilaterally cancelled the lease deed except in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated therein and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The impugned cancellation order is not based on any violation of lease conditions but solely on the refusal of the petitioner to comply with an illegal demand, which itself was under challenge before this Court. She submits that the petitioner was granted allotment on parity with M/s Satna Minerals and Vinay Industries pursuant to the directions of this Court. 57. She submits that the respondents cannot adopt a discriminatory approach by applying different standards to similarly situated allottees. The action of the respondents in cancelling the petitioner’s allotment, 22 while extending parity to other similarly situated industrial units, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 58. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned cancellation order has been passed without affording any meaningful opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents acted in excess of their jurisdiction by cancelling the allotment during pendency of judicial proceedings, thereby rendering the impugned order void ab initio. She submits that any order passed without jurisdiction is nonest in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. The petitioner has made substantial investments, availed loans and commenced industrial activities on the allotted plot. It is submitted that the arbitrary cancellation has caused irreparable financial loss and serious prejudice to the petitioner. She submits that the impugned action has also adversely affected industrial development and investor confidence in the State and therefore sought for Quashing the cancellation order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the respondent authorities; Declare the cancellation of allotment and lease deed to be illegal, arbitrary and void; Restore the allotment and lease of Plot No. 19/C in favour of the petitioner and Restrain the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned cancellation order. REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE STATE/RESPONDENT 59. In view of common questions of fact and law arising in the above writ petitions concerning allotment of industrial land, demand of revised premium, and subsequent cancellation of allotment, the answering 23 Respondents/State respectfully place the following consolidated submissions for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. 60. The present batch of petitions arises out of allotment of industrial land in District Durg and the subsequent demand raised pursuant to revision of land premium rates by the State Government. While W.P.(C) No. 4934/2022 and W.P.(C) No. 4187/2022 primarily challenge the demand notice issued to the petitioner requiring payment of differential premium, W.P.(C) No. 4562/2023 challenges the consequential cancellation of allotment and dismissal of appeal arising from non- payment of dues. All the above petitions are therefore interconnected and arise out of the same chain of administrative actions. 61. It is submitted that the Government of Chhattisgarh revised the premium rates for industrial land vide policy decision dated 22.10.2019, enhancing the premium applicable to industrial areas in District Durg. The authorities were duty bound to apply prevailing rates in ongoing and pending allotments to prevent loss to public revenue. Consequently, differential premium became payable by units including the petitioner. The demand raised is therefore a consequence of policy revision and not an arbitrary act. 62. The demand notice dated 09.11.2022 was issued directing payment of the difference amount of land premium after adjustment of deposits already made by the petitioner. Such demand was issued pursuant to directions of higher authorities and in conformity with industrial land allotment policy and governing rules. Hence, the demand 24 notice challenged in W.P.(C) Nos. 4934/2022 and 4187/2022 is lawful and justified. 63. This Court, while entertaining challenge to the demand notice, granted interim protection subject to payment of 75% of the demanded amount. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order and instead approached the Supreme Court, which disposed of the matter granting liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter attempted to seek waiver of deposit condition rather than complying with lawful directions. 64. Such conduct shows persistent avoidance of lawful payment. Due to continued failure of the petitioner to deposit the difference amount despite repeated notices and opportunity of hearing, cancellation proceedings were initiated strictly in accordance with policy and rules. The competent authority passed order dated 21.02.2023 cancelling allotment. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal which, after hearing, was dismissed on 28.04.2023. Thus, the impugned actions challenged in W.P.(C) No. 4562/2023 are legally sustainable and passed after due compliance of principles of natural justice. 65. After dismissal of appeal, a further statutory remedy was available before the Director/Commissioner, Directorate of Industries under Rule 3.8 of the Rules of 2015. The petitioner, without availing the statutory remedy, rushed to this Court. The petitions are therefore not maintainable on account of existence of efficacious alternative remedy. It is submitted that the material facts including cancellation of allotment 25 and dismissal of appeal were not fully disclosed at relevant stages while seeking reliefs. 66. Further, the petitioner has failed to comply with interim deposit condition imposed by this Court. Such conduct disentitles the petitioner from equitable relief. The reliance placed upon allotments in favour of M/s Satna Minerals & Metals Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Vinay Industries is misplaced. The allotment to Satna Minerals was governed by an earlier policy regime, prior to enforcement of Rules of 2015 and subsequent rate revision. 67. In contrast, allotment cases governed by later policy, including that of M/s Vinay Industries, were subjected to revised premium rates. Therefore, the petitioner has in fact been treated similarly to units governed by prevailing policy and no discrimination exists. 68. It is a settled law that public property must be dealt with in transparent and financially prudent manner. Authorities cannot perpetuate allotment at outdated rates causing loss to public exchequer. Corrective action undertaken by the State is thus in discharge of its public trust obligation. 69. Execution of lease deed does not create an absolute right immune from compliance with applicable policy directions, especially where allotment is conditional and subject to rules governing premium and lease rent. Failure to comply automatically attracts cancellation consequences. 26 70. The petitioner has repeatedly approached this Court challenging demand notice, interim conditions, and consequential cancellation, thereby prolonging litigation instead of complying with lawful obligations. The petitions constitute successive attempts to avoid payment rather than genuine legal grievance. The administrative decisions taken pursuant to policy and statutory framework are not liable to be interfered with unless manifest arbitrariness or illegality is demonstrated, which is absent in the present matters. Both the demand notice and cancellation orders have been passed after granting opportunity of hearing and in conformity with law and policy. There is no violation of natural justice or statutory provisions is made. Thus W.P.(C) No. 4934/2022 and W.P.(C) No. 4187/2022 challenging demand notice are devoid of merit as the demand flows from lawful policy revision;W.P. (C) No. 4562/2023 challenging cancellation is unsustainable as cancellation followed petitioner’s failure to comply despite repeated opportunities and appeal proceedings. 71. So far as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 in WPC No. 4187 of 2022 is concerned, he raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition and submits that the present writ petition, as framed and filed, is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 72. The petitioner seeks to challenge the allotment of Industrial Plot No. 19/C situated in Heavy Industrial Area, Bhilai, which presently stands allotted and leased to Respondent No.5 in accordance with 27 lawful orders and directions issued pursuant to earlier proceedings before this Court. It is submitted that the subject matter of allotment of the said industrial unit has already been adjudicated upon in earlier proceedings before this Court and consequential administrative actions have been taken in compliance thereof. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be permitted to reopen settled issues through the present petition. 73. He submits that the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner does not give rise to any enforceable legal right in his favour. The allotment of the industrial plot was made by the competent authority to Respondent No.5 pursuant to judicial directions, and the petitioner has no subsisting right or claim over the said property. It is submitted that the petitioner seeks to create an artificial grievance against the State authorities despite the fact that allotment proceedings have culminated into execution of a lease deed and possession has already been handed over to Respondent No.5, who has acted upon the same by investing substantial resources in development of the industrial unit. 74. The earlier litigation relating to allotment of industrial plots, including proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016 and connected matters, culminated in directions issued by this Court requiring consideration of claims of similarly situated applicants on the ground of parity. 75. In compliance with such judicial directions, the Industries Department processed the case of eligible applicants, including Respondent No.5, and allotment was made strictly in accordance with 28 applicable rules and policy. The action of allotment in favour of Respondent No.5 was therefore not arbitrary but undertaken pursuant to judicial directions and in conformity with statutory provisions. 76. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the petitioner has attempted to mislead this Court by suggesting that the allotment in favour of Respondent No.5 was made contrary to court orders or by manipulation of proceedings, which allegation is wholly unfounded and incorrect. It is submitted that allotment was made after due consideration of claims of eligible applicants and in accordance with prevailing industrial land management rules. It is further submitted that the petitioner seeks to create an artificial grievance against the State authorities despite the fact that allotment proceedings have culminated into execution of a lease deed and possession has already been handed over to Respondent No.5, who has acted upon the same by investing substantial resources in development of the industrial unit. 77. He submits that earlier litigation relating to allotment of industrial plots, including proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 913 of 2016 and connected matters, culminated in directions issued by this Court requiring consideration of claims of similarly situated applicants on the ground of parity. compliance with such judicial directions, the Industries Department processed the case of eligible applicants, including Respondent No.5, and allotment was made strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policy. The action of allotment in favour of Respondent No.5 was therefore not arbitrary but undertaken pursuant to judicial directions and in conformity with statutory provisions. 29 78. It is submitted that the petitioner has attempted to mislead this Court by suggesting that the allotment in favour of Respondent No.5 was made contrary to court orders or by manipulation of proceedings, which allegation is wholly unfounded and incorrect. It is submitted that allotment was made after due consideration of claims of eligible applicants and in accordance with prevailing industrial land management rules. The petitioner is attempting to create an impression of illegality where none exists, solely to secure cancellation of a lawful allotment already acted upon. It is submitted that pursuant to lawful allotment, a lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was duly executed in favour of Respondent No.5, and possession of the plot was handed over Respondent No.5 has since acted upon the allotment by obtaining financial assistance, constructing industrial sheds, installing machinery and securing necessary industrial and electrical connections. The contractual relationship between the State and Respondent No.5 having been concluded and acted upon, interference at this stage would cause grave prejudice and irreparable loss, apart from unsettling concluded administrative actions. 79. It is further submitted that the rate at which allotment was made in favour of Respondent No.5 was determined in accordance with the applicable policy governing allotment of land to small-scale industries. Merely because the petitioner claims to have been offered land at a higher rate or under different circumstances does not render the allotment illegal. Each allotment is governed by the policy and 30 prevailing rules applicable at the relevant time, and therefore no parity can be claimed mechanically. 80. He submits that the present petition is motivated and constitutes an abuse of the process of court, being filed only to obstruct lawful industrial development undertaken by Respondent No.5. The petitioner is attempting to unsettle a concluded allotment after substantial investments have already been made, thereby causing avoidable hardship and loss not only to Respondent No.5 but also to the State’s industrial development objectives. 81. Thus, the present writ petition as not maintainable and devoid of merit, with exemplary costs. The petitioner is attempting to create an impression of illegality where none exists, solely to secure cancellation of a lawful allotment already acted upon. It is submitted that pursuant to lawful allotment, a lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was duly executed in favour of Respondent No.5, and possession of the plot was handed over Respondent No.5 has since acted upon the allotment by obtaining financial assistance, constructing industrial sheds, installing machinery and securing necessary industrial and electrical connections. 82. The contractual relationship between the State and Respondent No.5 having been concluded and acted upon, interference at this stage would cause grave prejudice and irreparable loss, apart from unsettling concluded administrative actions. It is further submitted that the rate at which allotment was made in favour of Respondent No.5 was determined in accordance with the applicable policy governing allotment of land to small-scale industries. Merely because the 31 petitioner claims to have been offered land at a higher rate or under different circumstances does not render the allotment illegal. Each allotment is governed by the policy and prevailing rules applicable at the relevant time, and therefore no parity can be claimed mechanically. 83. He submits that the present petition is motivated and constitutes an abuse of the process of court, being filed only to obstruct lawful industrial development undertaken by Respondent No.5. The petitioner is attempting to unsettle a concluded allotment after substantial investments have already been made, thereby causing avoidable hardship and loss not only to Respondent No.5 but also to the State’s industrial development objectives. He therefore submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable and devoid of merits. FINDINGS : 84. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, and upon perusing the pleadings, documents on record, and prior orders in connected proceedings, this Court finds that the controversy in all three writ petitions rests on a common factual and legal matrix. The rival contentions thus warrant joint consideration to ensure a comprehensive and consistent adjudication. 85. The record reveals that allotment of industrial land in favour of the petitioner ultimately came to be finalized pursuant to directions issued earlier by this Court, whereafter the competent authority issued Letter of Intent and accepted the premium demanded from the petitioner. Consequent thereto, a lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was duly executed and possession of land was delivered to the petitioner, who thereafter 32 commenced industrial construction and invested substantial resources in setting up the unit. 86. It is the consistent submission of the petitioner that once allotment stood concluded and lease deed executed, the contractual relationship between the parties attained finality, and the authorities ceased to possess power to unilaterally revise the premium or impose additional financial liability unless such power was expressly reserved under the lease deed or governing policy. 87. On the contrary it is contended by the respondents submits that the demand of differential premium was raised pursuant to revision of prevailing land premium rates under Government policy and that the petitioner was obliged to comply with such demand failing which cancellation of allotment was justified. It is in the above backdrop that the issues framed for determination assume significance and require independent examination. 88. The controversy involved concerns allotment of industrial land in District Durg, demand raised by the authorities towards differential land premium consequent upon revision of rates, and subsequent proceedings culminating in cancellation of allotment granted in favour of the petitioner. W.P.(C) No. 4934 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 4187 of 2022 challenge the demand notice dated 09.11.2022 requiring the petitioner to deposit the differential premium amount. W.P.(C) No. 4562 of 2023 challenges the subsequent cancellation of allotment order dated 21.02.2023 and the appellate order dated 28.04.2023 affirming the cancellation. 33 89. The following issues arise for consideration: (i) Whether the respondents were justified in demanding differential premium after execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner? (ii) Whether cancellation of allotment for non-payment of demanded amount is legally sustainable? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in all or any of the petitions? (I) Whether the respondents were justified in demanding differential premium after execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner? 90. The record unmistakably demonstrates that allotment of industrial land in favour of the petitioner attained finality pursuant to the directions issued earlier by this court in WPC No. 913 of 2016 following which the competent authority issued the Letter of Intent and accepted premium at the prescribed rate of Rs. 8 lacs per hectare. Upon compliance with all stipulated conditions and deposit of the demanded amount the lease deed dated 06.09.2022 was duly executed and possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner. 91. From the materials placed on record, it emerges that neither the Letter of Intent nor the executed lease deed contained any clause enabling subsequent revision of premium after acceptance of consideration and execution of lease. The allotment stood crystallized upon acceptance of premium and execution of lease deed. 92. The correspondence relied upon by the respondents only shows administrative attempts to align allotment with revised premium rates 34 but does not disclose any statutory or contractual authority enabling reopening of a concluded allotment. A concluded contract, particularly relating to industrial land allotment, cannot ordinarily be unsettled unilaterally unless the contract itself reserves such authority. Administrative decisions cannot override contractual finality once rights have crystallized and the allottee has altered his position acting upon the allotment. 93. The petitioner, having taken possession and commenced construction, clearly altered his position relying upon final allotment. Equity and contractual certainty both operate against retrospective enhancement of premium. Even the Apex Court, while considering the connected matter, observed prima facie that the petitioner was entitled to allotment on the same rate and terms as extended to Satna Minerals,(lease deed Annexure-P/6, @ 8 lacs per hectare for a period of 99 years) and granted time to the authorities to rectify the allotment accordingly. The operative portion of the order passed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 6705 of 2023 (M/s. Vinay Industries Vs. Anil Tuteja & Others) reads as under: “We are inclined to grant two weeks’ time to the respondent(s) to rectify the order of allotment issued to the petitioner and to allot the land to the petitioner on the similar rate as was allotted to M/s Satna Minerals and Metal Pvt. Ltd. List the matter after two weeks for compliance. We make it clear that in the event an order, as stated hereinabove, is issued, the respondent(s) would be exonerated.” 94. This order clearly demonstrates recognition of petitioner’s entitlement to parity in allotment rate. The petitioner further relies upon 35 the judgment of the Apex Court in Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 107, wherein the Court held that existence of an alternative remedy does not bar exercise of writ jurisdiction where the action impugned is arbitrary, violative of natural justice, or wholly without jurisdiction. She invites attention to paragraph 7 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.” 95. The present case squarely falls within the said principles since the cancellation order and enhanced demand are arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and issued by authorities lacking jurisdiction after conclusion of the lease. 96. The Apex Supreme Court further clarified that prima facie the High Court order directing allotment on parity with Satna Minerals justified issuance of notice. The aforesaid order clearly demonstrates that even at the highest judicial level, parity in allotment rate in favour of the petitioner has been acknowledged, thereby rendering the 36 subsequent enhancement of rate and cancellation wholly unsustainable. The petitioner respectfully submits that cancellation and revised demand are thus arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, contrary to the doctrine governing concluded contracts, and in direct conflict with binding judicial directions. 97. Consequently, the demand notice dated 09.11.2022, insofar as it seeks recovery of differential premium after execution of lease deed, cannot be sustained in law. (ii) Whether cancellation of allotment for non-payment of demanded amount is legally sustainable? 98. The cancellation order dated 21.02.2023, affirmed by appellate order dated 28.04.2023, is entirely founded upon alleged non-payment of the additional premium demanded under notice dated 09.11.2022. Once this Court finds that the demand itself lacks legal foundation, the consequential cancellation premised upon non-compliance thereof necessarily collapses. 99. Cancellation of allotment based upon refusal to comply with an unlawful demand cannot survive judicial scrutiny. Even if opportunity of hearing was afforded, procedural compliance cannot validate an action substantively unsustainable in law. Furthermore, cancellation was effected during pendency of proceedings before this Court and when modification applications were under consideration, thereby demonstrating undue haste on part of the authorities. Accordingly, cancellation of lease and subsequent affirmation thereof cannot be legally upheld. 37 (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in all or any of the petitions? 100. Insofar as W.P.(C) No. 4934 of 2022 is concerned, the challenge therein relates to the demand notice dated 09.11.2022, which for reasons discussed above deserves to be quashed. Similarly, W.P.(C) No. 4562 of 2023, challenging cancellation orders dated 21.02.2023 and 28.04.2023, also merits acceptance since cancellation is unsustainable once the underlying demand fails. 101. However, as regards W.P.(C) No. 4187 of 2022, the pleadings and grievances substantially overlap with issues adjudicated in the other two petitions. No independent cause of action survives once relief is granted in the connected petitions. Accordingly, said petition does not merit separate relief. Effect of Orders Passed by the Apex Court 102. It is also necessary to notice that against interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner had approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court, by order dated 05.01.2023, disposed of the SLP granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before this Court, observing: “However, the learned senior counsel seeks liberty to file further application before the High Court. The petitioner is always at liberty to avail remedy as the law permits to him. In view of above, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.” 103. The order of the Apex Court thus left the controversy open for adjudication before this Court and does not preclude examination of 38 legality of the impugned demand or cancellation orders. Upon cumulative consideration of rival submissions, contractual framework, policy provisions, and judicial orders, this Court is satisfied that: • The demand of differential premium raised after execution of lease deed is unsustainable; • Cancellation founded upon such demand is illegal; • Allotment having attained finality, the petitioner is entitled to restoration of lease and consequential rights. 104. Consequently the demand notice dated 09.11.2022 is liable to be quashed. The Cancellation order dated 21.02.2023 and appellate order dated 28.04.2023 deserve to be set aside. Lease and allotment in favour of the petitioner stand restored. W.P.(C) Nos. 4934 of 2022 and 4562 of 2023 are allowed and W.P.(C) No. 4187 of 2022 stands dismissed. 105. Respondent authorities are directed to give full effect to restoration of allotment and lease in favour of the petitioner within a reasonable period, preferably within sixty days from receipt of certified copy of this order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.10 16:39:03 +0530