High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.03.26 18:53:25 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1461 of 2020 2025:CGHC:13939 NAFR 1 - Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Shri Bhagirathi Sharma Aged About 49 Years R/o Ganja Chowk, Thethwarpara Raigarh, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh. versus --- Petitioner(s) 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, District - Raigarh 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) WPC No. 2972 of 2022 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) WPC No. 1897 of 2014 1 - Sanjay Sharma S/o Shri Bhagirathi Sharma Aged About 38 Years R/o Ganja Chowk Thethwar Para P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G. ---Petitioner(s) 2 Versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, New Mantralaya, New Raipur C.G. 2 - The Commissioner, (Revenue) Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur C.G. 3 - The Collector Raigarh Distt. Raigarh C.G. 4 - The Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh C.G. 5 - The Nazul Officer Raigarh Distt. Raigarh C.G. 6 - The Assistant Director Town And Country Planning Raigarh District Raigarh C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State For Respondent No.4 : : : Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate. Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment reserved on 22.11.2024 Judgment delivered on 22.03.2025 1. All these three writ petitions relate to same subject matter between the same parties, therefore they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2. WPC No.1897 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent No.4 to immediate rehabilitate the petitioner as per the recommendation of respondent No.5 and prayed for the following reliefs: “1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, quashing Annexure P/20 being patently illegal, arbitrary and capricious. 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case from the Respondent. 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 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 4 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 5 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 6 (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 7 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
Decision
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 8 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 9 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. WPC No.1461 of 2020 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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