Absence of ownership or title in subject land negates locus standi to challenge government land allotment.

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of various parcels of land under Khasra numbers in Namnakala, Ambikapur

They alleged that adjacent Government Nazul land (Khasra No. 243/1) served as their sole access route to their property

They challenged the legality of the allotment of 0.90 acres of this Nazul land to Respondent No. 4, which occurred on July 10, 2025

Previously, the Nazul Officer had rejected the petitioners' application under Section 131 of the CG Land Revenue Code, 1959, noting they had alternative access

The State contended that revenue records from 2023-2024 showed the petitioners had transferred their land to third parties and were no longer Bhumiswamis at the time of the allotment, thereby lacking locus standi

The petitioners contended in their rejoinder that despite selling portions of the land, they retained title over approximately 60 decimals

1. Whether the petitioners possessed the locus standi to challenge the allotment of Government Nazul land to a third party

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to interim relief regarding the access route across the disputed land

Section 131 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which governs the rights of way and other private easements over the boundaries of other lands

The Court applied the principle of locus standi, requiring a petitioner to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest or ownership right in the subject matter to maintain a writ petition

The Court examined the revenue documents for the period 2023-2024 submitted by the State, which indicated that the subject land was recorded in the names of persons other than the petitioners

The Court observed that at the time the government land (Khasra No. 243/1) was allotted to Respondent No. 4 in July 2025, the petitioners did not hold Bhumiswami rights or ownership over the adjacent land

Despite the petitioners' claim in their rejoinder that they retained 60 decimals of land, the Court found that the current revenue records contradicted their assertion of ownership at the time of the cause of action

Consequently, the Court determined that because the petitioners did not hold ownership rights when the allotment occurred, they failed to establish the requisite locus standi to maintain the challenge against the State's administrative action

However, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to file a fresh petition should they be able to prove they still hold valid title to any specific portion of the subject land

All pending interlocutory applications, including the prayer for interim relief, were disposed of accordingly