Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 30 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal, son of Late Shri Kailash Kumar Agrawal, aged about 62 years, residing at 24, South Avenue Road, 1st Floor, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
  • Respondents:

1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Chhattisgarh.

2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (CSIDC).

3. Chief General Manager, District Trade and Industries Centre.

4. Chief General Manager (Land Allotment Section), District Trade and Industries Centre.

5. Collector, District – Raipur.

  • Petition Details: Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (WPC No. 2812 of 2026) on 25 May 2026, seeking quash of an order dated 11 March 2026 that restricted allotment of adjoining industrial land to 15% of the original parcel and of eviction notices dated 07 May 2026, 15 May 2026 and 21 May 2026.
  • Disputed Land: Approximately 100 m × 35 m (≈ 3,500 sq m) situated at Urla Industrial Area, Patwari Halka No. 29, Revenue Inspector Circle Raipur‑21 Rawanbhata, Tehsil Dharsiwa, District Raipur, on the northern side of the petitioner’s industry (M/s Natural Fuels, Urla, Raipur). The petitioner claims settled possession of this land.
  • Reliefs Sought:

1. Production of all records of CSIDC relating to the disputed land.

2. Quash of the 11 March 2026 order limiting allotment to 15%.

3. Quash of the eviction/demolition notices dated 07, 15 and 21 May 2026.

4. Direction to allot the entire disputed land to the petitioner under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Land & Building Management Rules, 2015.

5. Punishment of erring government officers.

6. Exemplary compensation for hardships.

7. Any other relief deemed fit.

  • Respondent’s Argument: The impugned order is appealable under Clauses 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Land & Building Management Rules, 2015. The petitioner may seek review or appeal within the statutory period; the court has no objection to the petitioner exercising this remedy.

Final Outcome

  • The Court noted the availability of statutory remedies under Clauses 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 and declined to entertain the writ petition on merits.
  • The petitioner is directed to file a review under Clause 3.8.1 or an appeal under Clause 3.8.2 before the competent authority within 10 days from the date of this order.
  • The competent authority must entertain and decide the review/appeal within 30 days, without rejecting it on grounds of limitation or delay caused by the pending writ petition.
  • Respondents are prohibited from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner for 40 days from the date of this order, to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.
  • The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

Topics: Land Allotment, Industrial Regulation