A.K.INFRADEAL PVT. LTD vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010126742022 2026:CGHC:38484

NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2002 of 2022
1 - A.K.Infradeal Pvt. Ltd Through Nishant Khandelwal Aged 40 Years,
S/o Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ward No. 1 Mungeli Road, Bilaspur Civil And
Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh District Collector Collectorate Bilaspur, P. S.
Civil Lines Bilaspur, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2 - Additional Collector Collectorate Bilaspur, P. S. Civil Lines Bilaspur,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, P. S. Masturi Bilaspur Civil
And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 2005 of 2022

2
1 - Sunflower Housing Pvt Ltd Through Amit Agrawal Aged 38 Years,
S/o Shri B.M. Agrawal, Land Mark, Karbala Road, Bilaspur Civil And
Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.).
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh District Collector Collectorate Bilaspur, P.S.
Civil Lines Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G.).
2 - Additional Collector Collectorate Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines Bilaspur,
Bilaspur (C.G.).
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi P.S. Masturi Bilaspur Civil
And Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.).
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 2083 of 2022
1 - Jai Prakash Agrawal S/o Shri Baijnath Agrawal Aged About 40 Years
In Front Of Vidya Garden, Colony Mungeli Road, Bilaspur Civil And
Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh District Collector Collectorate Bilaspur, P.S.
Civil Lines Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Additional Collector, Collectorate Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines Bilaspur,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, P.S. Masturi Bilaspur Civil
And Revenue,, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

3
--- Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board

31/08/2026
1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these
cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions.
Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer
made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and
substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The
reliefs prayed in WPC No. 2002/2022 (A.K. Infradeal Pvt Ltd vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) are quoted hereinbelow in order
to consider these cases and to decide the same.
“10.1 That, the entire records pertaining to the case of the
petitioner be called for perusal.
10.2 That, appropriate writ/directions be for quashing the
order dated 29/06/2020 and 30/06/2020 passed by
respondents in Revenue Case no 37-B-121/2018-19 and
issue directions for maintaining the status of use of land
belonging to petitioner in accordance with order dated

4
07/12/2019 passed in Revenue Case no 37-B-121/2018-
19 Annexure P-13, and respondent no 3 be restrained to
pass any order in compliance of order dated 30/06/2019
Annexure P-2 of not dispossessed to petitioner from his
said land for which he is legally entitled.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
10.4 Cost of the petition.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, while
passing the impugned order directing diversion of the land for
commercial purposes, the learned Additional Collector has taken
into consideration and relied upon a statutory provision which had
already been omitted from the statute prior to the passing of the
impugned order. It is contended that, once the said provision
stood omitted, the learned Additional Collector could not have
exercised jurisdiction or passed an order of diversion solely on
the basis of such omitted provision. It is, therefore, submitted that
the impugned order, having been passed by taking recourse to a
provision which was no longer in force, is without jurisdiction and
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance
with law. However, he fairly submits that the provision contained

5
in Section 237(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959,
had already been omitted with effect from 16.01.2012.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the material available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further
considering the admitted position that the provision contained
under Section 237(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code,
1959, had already been omitted with effect from 16.01.2012, this
Court finds that the impugned orders have been passed primarily
on the strength of the said provision, which was admittedly no
longer in force on the date of passing of the impugned orders.
Thus, it appears that the concerned authorities, while passing the
impugned orders, have failed to take into consideration the fact
that the statutory provision upon which reliance was placed had
already been omitted. An order founded upon a provision which
was no longer in force cannot be said to have been passed in
accordance with the applicable law. Consequently, the impugned
orders cannot be permitted to stand and are liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 29.06.2020 and
30.06.2020 are hereby set aside. Consequently, all the writ
petitions stand allowed . However, it is made clear that setting
aside of the impugned orders shall not preclude the competent
authority from passing a fresh and appropriate order, if so
warranted, strictly in accordance with the provisions of law

6
applicable on the relevant date. The concerned authority shall be
at liberty to proceed with the matter afresh and take an
appropriate decision in accordance with law, after duly
considering all relevant facts and statutory provisions.
SD/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat