No allotment can be directed under a withdrawn scheme; claims must be pursued before the municipal authority.

The connected petitions concerned competing claims over Nazul Plot No. 155, measuring 5,000 square feet, situated at Manendragarh.

Shrikant Agrawal claimed allotment/settlement of the plot under the State Government’s scheme dated 13.09.2019 and sought either direct allotment, auction of the plot, or analogous consideration of his claim with that of Tasauvar Ali, the rival claimant.

The petitioners contended that where competing applications were received, Point No. 5 of the applicable order-sheet required allotment through auction, and that eviction proceedings had been initiated despite the pending settlement proceedings.

Tasauvar Ali also asserted a competing claim and filed W.P.(C) No. 1098 of 2022.

The State submitted that the 13.09.2019 scheme had been withdrawn by notification dated 23.07.2024 and that neither claimant had an enforceable right to allotment.

The Municipal Council, Manendragarh contended that the land belonged to it and could not be allotted by the revenue authorities to either private claimant.

Whether the petitioners could be granted allotment or settlement of the subject Nazul land under the State Government scheme dated 13.09.2019 after its withdrawal on 23.07.2024

Whether the High Court could direct allotment, auction, or analogous consideration of the competing claims in favour of either private claimant when the Municipal Council asserted ownership of the land

Whether the parties could be granted liberty to seek allotment or lease directly from the Municipal Council in accordance with applicable law and rules

The Court applied the principle that allotment of public or municipal land must be made under the applicable statutory framework, rules, scheme, and by the competent authority; no private claimant possesses an automatic or vested right to allotment merely by submitting an application.

A relief founded on a government scheme cannot be granted after the scheme has been withdrawn.

Further, where ownership or control of the land is asserted by a municipal authority, the High Court should not direct allotment of that land in writ proceedings without adjudicating or prejudging the authority’s entitlement; the appropriate remedy is to approach the competent municipal authority under the applicable law.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court found that the principal reliefs claimed by both parties were based on the 13.09.2019 government scheme. Since that scheme had been withdrawn by notification dated 23.07.2024, the Court held that allotment or settlement under the withdrawn scheme could no longer be ordered.

The Court also declined to direct auction or allotment because the Municipal Council had asserted that the subject land belonged to it.

In those circumstances, granting relief to either rival claimant would improperly determine the parties’ entitlement to land allegedly vested in the Municipal Council and would bypass the competent authority.

The Court therefore left the merits of the competing claims open and directed that any future application be considered independently under the applicable law, rules, or scheme.

Both writ petitions were disposed of.

Shrikant Agrawal and Tasauvar Ali were granted liberty to approach the competent authority by filing appropriate applications for allotment or lease of the subject land from the Municipal Council, Manendragarh.

The authority was directed to consider and decide any such application in accordance with law and the applicable rules or scheme.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of either party’s claim.