1 2026:CGHC:15223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4583 of 2021 1 - Charanjeet Singh Chhabda S/o Santosh Singh Chhabda, Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Sankra, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Revenue Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bhrat Petroleum Corporation Through Its Territory Manager (Retail), 4 And 6, Shahid Veer Narayan Singh Bhawan, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Jaya Kosariya W/o Ranjeet Kosariya R/o Village Sankra, Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant writ petition and the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 30.09.2019 (Anne. P-1) may kindly be set-aside, in the interest of justice. 10.2] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to cancel the allotment of petrol pump, i.e. situated between "km stone 160 and km 158 on LHS NH 53 while moving towards Saraipali" allotted in favor of the respondent no. 4, in the interest of justice. 10.3] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2, to take appropriate action against the respondent no. 4 and all the wrongdoers involved in illegal transfer of service land i.e. land bearing Kh. No. 57/2, situated as Village Lohrakot, Tahsil Pithora, District - Mahasamund (C.G.), in the interest of justice. 10.4] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to 3 grant any other relief, which is deems fit and proper.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 14.12.2018, respondent No. 3 issued an advertisement for the allotment of a petrol pump between Km Stone 160 and Km 158 on the left-hand side of NH-53 while proceeding towards Saraipali, with the last date for submission of applications being 12.01.2019, pursuant thereto, respondent No. 4 applied under the said advertisement and, for the purpose of establishing the petrol pump, projected land bearing Khasra No. 57/2, situated at Village Lohrakot, PHN 39, Tahsil and District Mahasamund (C.G.), as his bhumiswami land, however, respondent No. 3, without proper verification of the application and without due inspection of the relevant documents, proceeded to allot the petrol pump in favour of respondent No. 4, thereafter, the petitioner raised specific objections before Respondent No. 3 along with a demand draft of Rs. 5,000/- seeking cancellation of the said allotment on the ground that the aforesaid land is service land (Kotwari land), which is the property of the State Government and is neither transferable nor saleable, rendering the allotment illegal. Respondent No. 3 called upon the petitioner to furnish supporting documents, in compliance whereof the petitioner submitted relevant revenue records evidencing that the land in question is service land. It is the specific case of the petitioner that Khasra No. 57/2 forms part of Khasra No. 57, which is admittedly service land and, therefore, could not have been sold or transferred either wholly or in part, yet in contravention of law a 4 portion thereof has been sold and diverted, making the allotment of the petrol pump over such land per se illegal and liable to be cancelled, despite the aforesaid objections and supporting documents, respondent No. 3 failed to take any action, compelling the petitioner to submit a reminder dated 23.09.2019, however, respondent No. 3, in a hurried and arbitrary manner, passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 closing the complaint without appreciating the applicable law or the documents on record, without conducting any independent inquiry, without seeking any explanation from respondent No. 4, and without furnishing to the petitioner copies of the Tahsildar’s report or the alleged order of the Hon’ble High Court relied upon; it is further submitted that the wife and children of the village Kotwar, namely Parasram, to whom the land was originally granted, have also raised grievances before respondent No. 2, though no effective action appears to have been taken, thus, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, and the continued inaction of the respondent authorities is equally arbitrary and erroneous, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the land bearing Khasra No. 57/2, purportedly shown as bhumiswami land of respondent No. 4, is in fact service land 5 attached to the office of village Kotwar, and in view of the provisions contained under Sections 147, 148, 150, and 183 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, read with Section 3 of the Abolition Act, 1950, no bhumiswami rights could vest in a Kotwar over such land, nor could the same be legally transferred, hence, the allotment of the petrol pump in favour of respondent No. 4 is ex facie illegal and contrary to law. It is further submitted that the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, in WPC No. 7048/2007 (Gambhirdas Panika v. Chairman, Board of Revenue & Others) decided on 30.11.2018, has categorically held that lands held by ex-Kotwars cannot be treated as bhumiswami lands and earlier contrary judgments stand overruled, thereby rendering the allotment in question unsustainable. The counsel argues that respondent No. 3 erred in rejecting the petitioner’s objection merely on the basis of the Tahsildar’s report indicating mutation and diversion in favour of respondent No. 4, without appreciating the revenue documents placed on record by the petitioner demonstrating the land to be service land. It is further contended that an illegality from its inception cannot be cured by lapse of time, and all consequential actions founded upon such illegality are void ab initio. The petitioner clarifies that the grievance is not regarding dispossession but pertains to cancellation of an illegal allotment, which has been misconstrued by the authorities. It is also urged that respondent No. 4 could not have been treated as a valid bhumiswami under the terms of the advertisement, and 6 therefore, the allotment itself is vitiated. Additionally, the petitioner submits that the illegal allotment has adversely affected his existing petrol pump business in the vicinity, conferring upon him a legitimate right to challenge the same. It is further pointed out that even the family members of the concerned Kotwar have raised objections before respondent No. 2, which ought to have been duly considered. Lastly, it is submitted that respondent No. 3 failed to conduct an independent inquiry, did not provide the petitioner with relevant documents including the Tahsildar’s report, and rejected the complaint without affording a fair opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice; and respondent No. 2 also failed to apply its mind to the issues involved. On these grounds, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 30.09.2019 and seeking cancellation of the petrol pump allotment in favour of respondent No. 4, is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed on multiple grounds, namely lack of locus standi, existence of business rivalry, and gross delay and laches. It is contended that the petitioner, being neither a participant in the selection process nor an applicant for the dealership, has no legal right to challenge the allotment, and is in fact an existing petrol pump operator in the nearby vicinity, thereby clearly indicating that the petition has been filed solely to eliminate competition. It is further submitted that the 7 complaint preferred by the petitioner was already rejected on 13.09.2019, however, the present writ petition has been filed after an unexplained delay of more than two years, supported by an affidavit dated 09.11.2021, without furnishing any justification for such delay, and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. During the intervening period, respondent No. 3 has proceeded with the establishment of the petrol pump after obtaining all requisite statutory permissions and has incurred substantial expenditure to the tune of approximately Rs. 30 lakhs of public funds towards installation and commissioning, and thus, any interference at this stage would be highly prejudicial and contrary to public interest. It is also argued that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any legal injury or violation of a legally enforceable right, and a mere fanciful or sentimental grievance cannot confer locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction. The documents relied upon by the petitioner are also disputed as being unauthenticated and self-serving, lacking official endorsement. It is further submitted that the establishment of a new petrol outlet serves the larger public interest by promoting accessibility and healthy competition, ultimately benefiting consumers. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of merits and filed with ulterior motives, deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 as well as for the State have adopted and supported, in 8 unequivocal terms, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for respondent No. 3, and have further contended that the impugned action is in accordance with law, does not suffer from any illegality or procedural impropriety, and therefore, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon due consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is evident that the petitioner, who is admittedly a rival petrol pump operator and not a participant in the selection process, lacks the requisite locus standi to challenge the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 4, particularly in absence of any demonstrable violation of a legally enforceable right. Furthermore, the petition suffers from gross delay and laches, inasmuch as the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 has been assailed after an unexplained lapse of more than two years, during which period substantial steps have already been undertaken by respondent No. 3 in furtherance of the allotment, including installation and commissioning of the petrol pump after due statutory compliances and incurring significant expenditure. This Court also finds no perversity or illegality in the decision-making process of the respondent authorities warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction 9 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contentions raised by the petitioner primarily pertain to disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. 8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition being misconceived, suffers from delay and latches, while lacking in substance, is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat