Ashok Lunkad vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

S.K. Agnihotri, J.

By this petition, the petitioners pray for setting aside the allotment of the nazul land to the Kayasth Samaj for construction of community hall and further a direction to the respondent authorities to spare 40 ft. wide approach road for the residents of Sun City Colony.

Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that petitioners are the partners of the partnership firm namely; Prithvi Developers. The petitioners have built various types of houses as per different strata of the society in the Sun City Colony. The said colony comes within the limits of the Municipal Corporation. Adjacent to the land belonging to the petitioners, there is a nazul land of the State Government bearing nazul sheet No. 123. According to the petitioners, out of the said nazul land, 2200 sq. ft. land has been allotted to the Kayasth Samaj for construction of their community hall by the State Government without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without doing the spot inspection by the revenue authorities. The said act of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. As per the circular of the State Government dated 29-9-1973 before allotting the land all the persons residing in the nearby vicinity, have to be noticed and after setting their objections, if any, the land may be allotted by the State Government, but the same has not been in the case on hand.

On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that on an application of the respondent No. 7 filed before the Nazul Officer, Jagdalpur, notice of memorandum to general public of Jagdalpur was issued and invited objections from them, but no one has filed any objection. Thereafter, with the consent of the authorities concerned, the matter was referred to the State Government through the Collector. After considering all the documents and after following the due process of law, vide order dated 9-1-2007 the State Government allotted the land in question in favour of the respondent No. 7 for construction of a community hall. Shri Thakur further submits that since the land of the petitioners is not adjacent to the land allotted to the respondent no. 7, no specific notice to the petitioners is necessary. As per the contents of the circular, the notice is required to be issued to a next neighbour whose land touches the boundary of the land to be allotted. The site map (Annexure - R1/2) clearly shows that the land belonging to the petitioners is not at all adjacent to the land allotted to the respondent No. 7. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.

It is evident that before allotting the land in question to the respondent No. 7 the respondent authorities issued a notice to the general public inviting objections from them, but no objection has been raised by the general public. Thereafter, the matter was forwarded to the State Government through the District collector. The State Government after considering all the aspects of the matter in its letter and spirit allotted the land in question in favour of the respondent No. 7 for construction of community hall. The petitioners failed to prove their case.

The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that all the persons who are residing in the nearby vicinity may be given personal notice is noticed to be rejected, as clause 3 of the circular dated 29-9-1973 (Annexure - P/10) clearly proves that the land owners whose land touches boundary of the land in dispute may be noticed and they may file objection thereafter and, as such, in the case on hand wherein there is a wide gap of about 450 sq. ft between Sun City colony and the land allotted to the respondent No. 7, the petitioners cannot claim specific notice for raising objection to the allotment of land to the respondent No. 7.

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.