1 - Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhagirathi Sharma Aged About 49 Years
R/o Ganja Chowk, Thethwarpara, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Revenue & Disaster
Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - The Commissioner Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
4 - Municipal Corporation, Raigarh Through Its Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5 - Nazul Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
6 - Assistant Director Town And Country Planning, Raigarh, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Sanjay Sharma S/o Shri Bhagirathi Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o
Digitally
Ganja Chowk Thethwar Para P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G.
signed by
INDRAJEET ---Petitioner(s)
SAHU
Date:
For State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No.4 : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Judgment reserved on 22.11.2024
Judgment delivered on 03.2025
1. All these three writ petitions relate to same subject matter between the
2. WPC No.1897 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the
3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the
Respondent no.4 for immediate Rehabilitation of the Petitioner as per
the previous recommendation of the Respondent No.5 [The Nazul
Officer] vide Annexure P/15, in relation to Nazul Sheet No.181/1, Area
2200 Square feet i.e., an area equal to the Petitioner's Land.
4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper,
may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the
petition."
3. WPC No.1461 of 2020 is filed by the petitioner for a direction for
allotment or transfer of the proposed land bearing Khasra No.181/1
area 2200 sq.ft. Situated at Beladula in lieu of petitioner's land which
was taken by the respondent No.4 for construction of a CC Road, and
prayed the following relief:
"1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate Writ/Direction for allotment or transfer of the proposed
land bearing Khasra No. 181/1, area 2200 square feet, situated at
Village-Beladula, in lieu of the petitioner's Bhumiswami Land taken by
the Respondent No. 4 for construction of the Road at the earliest, in
view of the process advanced and going to ripe i.e. the same is at the
stage of finalization before the Respondent.
2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate
Writ/Direction against the Respondent No. 4 that the Respondent No.
4 may not to proceed further with respect to the construction of the
haat bazaar(shops) in surrounding of the proposed land as the same
is under process of allotment or transfer or the Respondent may
proceed leaving the land proposed to be allotted in lieu of the
petitioner's Bhumiswami Land taken by the Respondent No. 4 for
construction of the Road.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper,
may also be grant in favour of the petitioner."
4. In the third writ petition i.e. WPC No.2972 of 2022 filed by the
petitioner, the petitioner has claimed almost a similar relief for
allotment or transfer of the proposed land bearing Khasra No.181/1
area 2200 sq.ft. situated at village Beladula in lieu of the petitioner's
land taken by the respondent No.4, and prayed the following reliefs:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/
quash the order/latter dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by
the respondent No. 1.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an
appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents for allotment or transfer of the propsed
land bearing Khasra No. 181/1 area 2200 Sq. Ft., situated at Village-
Beladula, in lieu of the petitioner Bhumiswami Land taken by the
respondent No. 4 for construction of the road at the earliest, in view of
the process advanced and going to ripe.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other
relief, as it may deem fit."
WPC No.1897 of 2011-
5. The subject matter in brief is that, the petitioner was holding land of
Khasra No.102/2 admeasuring 2180 sq.ft. Situated at village
Baikunthpur, District Raigarh which was recorded in his name. In the
year, 2006, without there being any proper acquisition of land the
Municipal Corporation, Raigarh/the respondent No.4 had constructed
a Cement Concrete road over 402 sq.ft. of the land of the petitioner
out of 2180 sq.ft. of land. In the meantime, the land of Khasra Nos.
177/1,178/1,179/1,180/1 and 181/1 total area 27442 sq.ft. of the land
of village Beladula district Raigarh, was allotted to Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh under the Chief Minister Swawlamban Yojna (in
short, Swawlamban Yojna) and for its implementation and possession,
the said 27442 sq.ft. of land was handed over to the Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh vide order dated 12.02.2007 issued by the
Collector, Raigarh. The petitioner also made his application to the
Municipal Corporation, Raigarh that CC Road has been illegally
constructed over part of his land without there being land acquisition or
payment of compensation, and prayed for compensation or in
alternative any other plot under the Municipal Corporation area. Vide
memo dated 25.01.2008 the respondent No.5 sought a direction from
the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh/respondent No.4 with respect to
allotment of alternative plot to the petitioner from Khasra No. 237/1K,
241/2 area 0.16 and 0.22 acres respectively which were recorded as
Nazul land in the revenue records as the petitioner has claimed the
alternative plot in lieu of his land. In reply thereof, the respondent No.4
had given no objection to allot alternative plot to the petitioner from the
land of Khasra No.237/1K and 241/2 situated at village Jagatpur,
District Raigarh.
6. The petitioner also made a complaint to Chhattisgarh Human Rights
Commission, Raipur, and in turn thereof, vide memo dated 08.08.2008
the Commission forwarded the response received from Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh to the petitioner by which no objection from
Municipal Corporation, Raigarh to allot alternative plot was informed to
the petitioner. Further, vide memo dated 31.10.2008 the Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh also gave their consent to the Additional
Collector, Raigarh, that in lieu of 6x67 feet of the land of the petitioner
in which road was constructed by the Municipal Corporation, under the
model rehabilitation policy the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh agreed
to allot the alternative plot to the petitioner on payment of premium and
land revenue @ Rs.1/- per square feet. The Nazul Officer, Raigarh,
has also given their no objection to allot alternative plot to the
petitioner vide its memo dated 01.10.2009. The Nazul Officer, Raigarh
also informed the Human Rights Commission, Raipur, vide its memo
dated 24.10.2009 that the process for allotment of alternative plot is
going on and after fixation of land revenue and premium of alternative
plot, the same would be forwarded to State Govt. for their approval
and after obtaining due approval from the State Govt., the same would
be allotted to the petitioner. No objection was also obtained from the
offices of Assistant Director, Town & Country Planning, Raigarh, Chief
Medical & Health Officer, Raigarh, District Education Raigarh,
Executive Engineer, PHE, Raigarh as also from the office of Divisional
Forest Officer, Raigarh.
7. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Revenue Inspector (Nazul)
Raigarh, vide its memo dated 11.06.2010 submitted valuation report of
the proposed land which was to be allotted to the petitioner
admeasuring 2180 sq.ft. from the Nazul Sheet No.237/1A and 241/2. It
also reflects from the said report submitted by the Revenue Inspector
(Nazul) dated 11.06.2010 that out of total 2180 sq.ft. of land of the
petitioner of Khasra No.102/2, the CC road was constructed only over
402 sq.ft. and the remaining 1778 sq.ft of the land remained unuseful
for the petitioner and in lieu of 2180 sq.ft. of the land of the petitioner,
he may be allotted the other land and he assessed the calculation of
the land of the petitioner and the land which was proposed to be
allotted to him. In furtherance thereof, the Nazul officer Raigarh vide its
order dated 02.11.2010 issued notices to the concerned department,
Municipal Corporation, before passing of the order of allotment. Vide
order dated 24.11.2010 the Nazul Officer, Raigarh also called a report
from the Assistant Superintendent Land Records (Nazul) Raigarh and
called the valuation report in view of guidelines issued for the year
2010-11 and which has been submitted by the Revenue Inspector
(Nazul) on 22.12.2010.
8. The Respondent No.5, after making enquiry and on the basis of report
submitted by the Revenue Inspector dated 22.12.2010 passed an
order on 26.08.2011 holding that after adjusting the value of the land
of the petitioner, he has to deposit an amount of Rs.12,03,816/- as
premium and Rs.60,191/- as yearly land revenue. The case of the
petitioner was forwarded to State Govt. through the Commissioner,
Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur for allotment of 2200 sq.ft. of land from
Khasra No.181/1, situated at village Beladula. When the matter was
forwarded through Collector, the Collector, Raigarh made a note on
10.01.2012 that it is a dispute between the Municipal Corporation and
the petitioner and if any construction was made by the Municipal
Corporation over the land of the petitioner, the compensation is to be
claimed from Municipal Corporation, but sending the proposal for
allotment of the Nazul land is not in accordance with law. Thereafter,
the petitioner approached before the Collector, Raigarh, on 24.10.2011
for an early disposal of his grievance. Since the grievance of the
petitioner was not redressed, he filed Writ Petition (C) No.6946 of 2011
before this court, While deciding the said writ petition, the coordinate
Bench of this court vide order 08.02.2013 directed that petitioner may
file appropriate petition/representation before respondent No.3 for
allotment or transfer of aforesaid land in lieu of the part of land taken
and used by Municipal Corporation. It was also held that the Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh, is under obligation to decide the matter as early
as possible keeping in view the fact that they have constructed road
over the land of the petitioner without following due procedure
prescribed. In compliance of the said order dated 08.02.2013 passed
in WPC No.6946 of 2011, the petitioner moved his representation
before the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh on 26.02.2013 and claimed
alternative plot from Khasra No.181/1 situated at village Beladula. On
26.03.2013 the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh has given a notice to
the petitioner that in lieu of his 402 sq.ft. of land in which road was
constructed, he has been allotted two plots No.80 & 81 having 356
sf.ft. of each plot total admeasuring 713 sq.ft. situated at Rajeev Nagar
and he may fulfill requisite formalities to get it recorded in his name.
9. Contempt Case (C)No.362/2013 was also filed by the petitioner before
this court for non compliance of the order dated 08.02.2013 passed in
WPC No.6946 of 2011. The said contempt case also got disposed of
on 09.07.2013 observing that no specific time frame was mentioned in
the order dated 08.02.2013 for deciding the representation, it was
directed that upon filing fresh representation by the petitioner within a
period of 15 days from today, the same shall be decided by the
respondent Municipal Corporation, Raigarh preferably within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
Thereafter, on 22.07.2013 the petitioner again moved his
representation before the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh. Another
Contempt Case (C)No.523 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner before
this court which was withdrawn on 06.02.2014 with liberty to file
afresh. Thereafter, Contempt Case (C)No.59 of 2014 was filed by the
petitioner for non compliance of the order dated 08.02.2013 passed in
WPC No.6946 of 2011 which was also disposed of on 16.07.2014 with
liberty to the petitioner that in the event if he is aggrieved with the
order dated 26.03.2013, he may challenge the same by way of
separate writ petition. While considering the Contempt Case (C)No.59
of 2014 it was observed by the coordinate Bench that on 26.03.2013
the respondent has decided that in lieu of petitioner's land which was
taken over by the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh for the purpose of
construction of road, the petitioner shall be given 713 sq.ft. of land
separately and for which the petitioner was directed to take
appropriate steps for getting it registered in his name.
10. The claim of the petitioner is that, he is the rightful owner of his
diverted residential land admeasuring 2180 sq.ft. of Khasra No.102/2
situated at village Baikunthpur, District Raigarh, which is still recorded
in his name in the revenue records. Even after lapse of 8 yeas, the
rehabilitation and resettlement of the petitioner was not done by the
respondent authorities which is against the ideal rehabilitation policy of
the State Govt. and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India. Without following due process of law, the petitioner is deprived
from his property. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for
allotment of 2200 sq.ft. of plot from Nazul Sheet No.181/1 situated at
village Beladula.
11. The respondent/State denied the claim of petitioner and submitted that
petitioner is claiming land from the respondent No.4/Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh and he has to properly reply the allegations
against them.
12. The respondent No.4/Municipal Corporation, Raigarh filed its reply and
submitted that the petitioner has suppressed the facts in the writ
petition with respect to present status of the questioned land. The
Revenue Inspector has inspected and prepared a demarcation report
relating to the questioned land and stated that construction of CC road
is only upon 6x67 feet which comes to 402 sq.ft. of land. Rest of
40x24=960 sq.ft. of land is occupied by one Claudius Uraon and
remaining 738 sq.ft. of land is still vacant and is in possession of the
petitioner. Since the petitioner is unable to get his land vacated from
Claudius Uraon, he is claiming entire 2180 sq.ft. of land from Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh. Although, some land was allotted by the State
Govt. to Municipal Corporation, Raigarh under the Chief Minister
Swawlamban Yojna but that land was for a specific purpose and no
part of that land can be allotted to the petitioner as an alternative plot
in lieu of 402 sq.ft. of land of the petitioner on which CC Road was
constructed.
13. In the present petition, the petitioner have pleaded that in WPC
No.6946 of 2011 though this court gave a direction on 08.02.2013 to
file a fresh representation to the respondent No.4, who, in turn, shall
decide the matter as early as possible, however, the respondent No.4
have not decided the matter positively. Contempt case (C)Nos. 362 of
2013, 523 of 2013 and 59 of 2014 were also filed for compliance of the
order passed by the coordinate Bench. When the petitioner did not get
the relief, another WPC No.1897 of 2014 was filed. On 26.03.2018 the
State Govt. wrote a letter to the Collector, Raigarh with respect to
grievance of the petitioner and to redress his grievance for allotment of
2200 sq.ft. of land from plot No.181/1 situated at village Beladula. He
again moved his representation to the Collector Raigarh on
23.04.2018. The Nazul Officer, Raigarh, had also submitted its report
on 21.08.2018 in response to the memo dated 14.05.2018 issued by
the Collector, Raigarh and again informed that the land of 2200 sq.ft.
out of plot No.181/1 can be allotted to the petitioner after receiving
premium and yearly land revenue of Rs.20,24,474/- and Rs.1,01,224/-
respectively. The Collector, Raigarh, vide its memo dated 24.12.2019
again recommended for allotment of alternative plot of 2200 sq.ft. from
Khasra No.181/1 situated at village Beladula after obtaining the
premium and yearly land revenue from the petitioner and
recommended for its allotment and send a proposal to the State Govt.
through Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. The Commissioner,
Bilaspur Division also recommended vide its memo dated 30.01.2020
and forwarded the proposal sent by the Collector Raigarh for its
approval. Since the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh started
construction of Hat Bazar over the proposed land which was to be
allotted to the petitioner, he filed this writ petition for the aforesaid
reliefs.
14. In the said writ petition, the claim of the petitioner has also been
denied by the State Govt. and have submitted that the
recommendation made by the Collector, Raigarh as well as the
Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur was still under consideration
before the State Govt. and submitted that since the State Govt. has
already initiated proceedings for grant of land in exchange of
petitioner's land on permanent lease as per rules, the present petition
is liable to be dismissed and the construction of the Hat Bazar over the
proposed land is to be duly answered by the respondent No.4
Municipal Corporation, Raigarh.
WPC No.2972 of 2022-
15. In the third writ petition i.e. WPC No.2972 of 2022 the challenge is the
order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the State Govt. stating therein that
the road was constructed over the land of the petitioner in the year,
2007 and therefore, the Collector was directed to assess the
compensation as per prevailing law in the year 2007 under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act, 1894) and to
decide the case in accordance with law. In this writ petition he again
claimed for allotment of 2200 sq.ft. of land from Khasra No.181/1 of
village Beladula.
16. In this writ petition, it has been replied by the State that as per
guidelines, premium amount of Rs.30,04,474/- and annual land
revenue of Rs.1,50,224/- came out for the land of 2200 sq.ft. of Khasra
No.181/1 situated at village Beladula. The recommendation was sent
by the Collector, Raigarh to the State Govt. for allotment of plot in
exchange. During pendency of proceedings, the Govt. framed a new
Act namely Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the
Act, 2013) and during pendency of instant petition, in compliance of
the order dated 08.02.2013 passed in WPC No.6946 of 2011, the
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh made communication
to Collector Raigarh that land admeasuring 402 sq.ft. of Khasra
No.102/2 was taken for the purposes of construction of CC Road and
therefore proposed to allot two plots i.e. plot Nos. 80 and 81 total
admeasuring 713 sq.ft. at Rajeev Nagar and the petitioner was
directed to take proceedings with regard to mutation of his name in the
aforesaid lands and asked to give consent for taking compensation
along with interest, but he refused both the proposals and therefore he
is not entitled for any relief.
17. In all these writ petitions, the petitioner would submit that the land of
petitioner was illegally encroached by the Municipal Corporation,
Raigarh by constructing a CC Road over his land. When the Municipal
Corporation as well as Collector have submitted the proposal for
allotment of alternative plot of 2200 sq.ft. from Khasra No.181/1
situated at village Beladula, the petitioner was under the legitimate
expectation that he would be granted alternative plot from Khasra
No.181/1. The conduct of the respondents clearly stops them by the
principles of estoppel and they are bound to allot the plot to the
petitioner from Khasra No.181/1 admeasuring 2200 sq.ft at village
Beladula. The respondents have repeatedly given their consent to allot
the alternative plot in lieu of his land over which the Municipal
Corporation has constructed CC Road. Since 2007 the petitioner is
running from pillar to post to redress his grievances, but no relief has
been granted to him till date. All procedures for allotment of alternative
plot has been followed by the respondent authorities. Even the
valuation of alternative plot has been done, but for the reasons best
known to them, the same has not been allotted despite having
alternative plot to allot the same to the petitioner. Now changing the
stand by the State Govt. to assess the compensation as per the Act,
1894 amounts to withdraw their concession and for no reason they
have withdrawn the same. When the Municipal Corporation, Nazul
Authority or Collector have no objection to allot the alternative plot and
they have forwarded the proposal in favour of the petitioner, the State
Govt. ought to have accepted the proposal and allotted alternative plot
to the petitioner. By the act of the respondent/Municipal Corporation,
the petitioner is deprived from his entire land of 2180 sq.ft. of Khasra
No.102/2 without there being any proper acquisition of land or
payment of compensation. Therefore, the respondent authorities may
be directed to allot 2200 sq.ft. of plot of Khasra No.181/1 situated at
village Beladula by allowing the writ petitions.
18. In support of his submissions, he would rely upon the judgment
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lala Ram &
Others Vs. Jaipur Development Authority and Another, 2016
(11)SCC 31, P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Victor K. Atkar, order dated
20.11.2023 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7210
of 2011 and Yasdeep Singh Saini and Another Vs. Naya Raipur
Development Authority & Another, 2019 SCC Online Chhattisgarh
78.
19. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions
made by the counsel for the petitioner and have submitted that the
petitioner cannot claim a particular land to be allotted as alternative
plot in lieu of his land over which the Municipal Corporation had
constructed a CC Road. The land which is claimed by the petitioner is
the land given to the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, under the Chief
Minister Swawlamban Yojna which was for a particular purpose and in
lieu of residential plot of the petitioner, his alternative plot over the land
of Khasra No.181/1 of village Beladula cannot be allotted. Considering
the grievance of the petitioner, the State Govt. has decided to allot plot
Nos. 80 & 81 total admeasuring 713 sq.ft. situated at Rajeev Nagar,
Raigarh and asked the petitioner to fulfill the requisite conditions to get
it recorded in his name, but he did not turn up to accept the same. He
would also submit that from the demarcation report it reflects that there
was an encroachment over the remaining land of the petitioner to
which he was unable to remove them and has claimed the alternative
plot from the respondents in which various writ petitions and contempt
proceedings have been filed by the petitioner, but no relief was
granted to him. He would also submit that in contempt case (C) No.59
of 2014 the coordinate Bench of this court has directed that if the
petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 26.03.2013, he may
challenge the same by way of a separate writ petition, but till date the
petitioner has not challenged the order dated 26.03.2013 by which
alternative two plot Nos. 80 & 81 total admeasuring 713 sq.ft. was
allotted to the petitioner. When the proposal was sent to the State
Govt. for allotment of 2200 sq.ft. of land from Khasra No.181/1
situated at village Beladula, the State Govt. decided to assess the
compensation of land of the petitioner as per the then prevailing law
and rules. The petitioner cannot claim allotment of alternative plot as a
matter of right that too in a commercial place reserved under the Chief
Minister Swawlamban Yojna and therefore all the writ petitions does
not have merit and liable to be dismissed.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4/Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh, would also submit that road has been
constructed over 402 sq.ft of land of the petitioner which was used for
access way by the general public in which the answering respondents
have constructed CC Road. For 402 sq. ft. of land the petitioner is
claiming 2200 sq.ft. of land of Khasra No.181/1 situated at Beladula
whereas after deducting 402 sq.ft. of land from Khasra No.102/2, the
remaining land of 1778 sq.ft. can be used by the petitioner. Since there
is encroachment over the land of the petitioner and he is unable to
remove the encroachment, he is claiming entire land from the State
Govt. as well as from the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh which is not
bonafide. The claim of the petitioner is only on a particular area and
particular land which is under the Chief Minister Swawlamban Yojna
which cannot be allotted to the petitioner. Although, some proposal
was forwarded for its allotment by the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh
as well as Collector, Raigarh, but no right is accrued in favour of the
petitioner to get it allotted in his favour. At the most the petitioner is
entitled for compensation for the land over which road was constructed
in accordance with law. Therefore, no relief can be granted to the
petitioners in the writ petitions.
21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
annexed with the writ petitions.
22. From the pleadings of respective parties as well as documents
annexed with the writ petitions it comes that the petitioner owned the
land of Khasra No.102/2 area 2180 sq.ft. situated at village
Baikunthpur, Raigarh and CC Road was constructed by the Municipal
Corporation, Raigarh over 402 sq.ft. of land. The petitioner is claiming
alternative plot in lieu of his land of Khasra No.102/2 and requested for
allotment of alternative plot of 2200 sq.ft. of land of Khasra No.181/1 at
village Beladula. Although, the said land of Khasra No.181/1 of village
Beladula is the Nazul land situated at Degree College to Kauhakonda
main road and the Nazul Officer as well as Collector, Raigarh, had no
objection and forwarded the proposal for allotment of alternative plot to
the petitioner for its approval to the State Govt., but the State Govt.
after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as
well as law applicable to the subject matter, directed the Collector,
Raigarh to assess the compensation of land of the petitioner over
which CC Road was constructed in the year, 2007.
23. In compliance of the order dated 08.02.2013 passed in WPC No.6946
of 2011, the respondent No.4-Municipal Corporation, Raigarh allotted
plot Nos. 80 & 81 total area 713 sq.ft. (356 sq.ft. of each plot) situated
at Rajeev Nagar in lieu of 402 sq.ft. of land of the petitioner over which
the CC Road was constructed. The said communication was made to
the petitioner vide its memo dated 26.03.2013 which is annexed as
Annexure P/20 in WPC No.1897 of 2014. In contempt case (C)No.59
of 2014, the said allotment of 713 sq.ft. of land to the petitioner was
considered and vide its order dated 16.07.2014 in Contempt Case
(C)No.59 of 2014 it was observed that the order dated 08.02.2013
passed in WPC No.6946 of 2011 has been complied with and the
petitioner was allotted 713 sq.ft. of land and he was called upon to
take appropriate steps for getting it in his name. Liberty was also
granted to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 26.03.2013 if he
is aggrieved by the said order by way of separate writ petition, but the
petitioner has not challenged the order dated 26.03.2013 by which two
plots i.e. Plot Nos. 80 & 81 total 713 st.ft. at Rajeev Nagar Raigarh
was allotted to him. The petitioner stuck in claiming over 2200 sq.ft. of
plot of Khasra No.181/1 situated at Beladula.
24. True it is that the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh as well as Collector,
Raigarh, had forwarded the proposal for allotment of alternative plot of
2200 sq.ft. of Khasra No.181/1 situated at Beladula, Raigarh, in lieu of
402 sq.ft. of land of the petitioner over which CC Road was
constructed in the year, 2007, but considering the nature of dispute
and also the claim of the petitioner; the nature of land over which the
CC Road was constructed; the nature and location of land claimed by
the petitioner; the decision taken by the State Govt. vide order dated
25.04.2022 directing the Collector, Raigarh, to decide the case of the
petitioner after assessing the compensation of subject land in view of
fact that road was constructed in the year 2007 and the compensation
is to be decided as per the then prevailing law, I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the same. Although the proposal was sent to
allot 2200 sq.ft. of land of Khasra No.181/1, but the same does not
confer any right upon the petitioner to claim for its allotment.
25. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in
the present case and no benefit can be extended on that basis as the
facts and circumstances of present case as well as facts of those
cases and issue involved in it are altogether different. Hence those
judgments are not helpful for the petitioner in the present writ petitions.
26. Under the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that
the respondent authorities are bound by their promissory estoppel as
they have only forwarded the proposal to the State Govt. for its
approval and submitted that they have no objection in allotment of
2200 sq.ft. of plot to the petitioner, but the ultimate decision is to be
taken by the State Govt. that plot is to be allotted or not. Therefore,
there is no promissory estoppel in the present case.
27. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any ground to grant relief to
the petitioner in these writ petitions. Consequently, all the writ petitions
are hereby dismissed. No order asto costs.
28. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
inder
