The court held that directions protecting the legitimate expectations of existing leaseholders must be read harmoniously with statutory limitations, and refusal to participate in a general lottery does not constitute abandonment of existing contractual rights.

Digitally signed by BABLU B RA AB JEL NU DRA R BHAJ AE NN AD RR KA AR BHANARKAR Date: 2026.05.08 1 +6 0: 55 39 0:24

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr.R.S.Marhas, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Samrath Singh Marhas, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.3 & 4/State on I.A.No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the present appeal.

2. On due consideration, I.A.No.01/2026 is allowed. Delay is condoned.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

4. The appellants have filed this writ appeal against the order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4503 of 2025 by which the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 herein/writ petitioners therein.

5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the subject land bearing Khasra No. 488, Juna Bilaspur, is Nazul land owned by the State Government. The Municipal Corporation has merely been placed in possession of the land for “Vyavasthadin” (management) purposes and the land has neither been formally allotted nor conveyed to the Corporation. The Appellants conducted verification of 88 shopkeepers of the old bus stand and categorised them into Category “A” (holders of live and valid leases), Category “B” (holders of expired leases), and Category “C” (persons having no documents). The original petitioners were placed in Category “A”.

6. A conscious policy decision was taken by the Mayor-in-Council that all allotments in New Imlipara Commercial Complex shall be made only for a maximum period of three years through a transparent lottery/allotment process. The said policy is in consonance with the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994, and also with the legal position that the Corporation has no authority to grant long-term leases in respect of Nazul land. Vide letter dated 31.07.2025, the original petitioners were invited to participate in the lottery/allotment process. However, instead of participating, their son-in-law refused to do so on the ground that they were seeking a “permanent lease” up to the year 2037–38.

7. Learned Single Judge, while observing in paragraph 25 of the impugned order that “the Corporation cannot execute leases beyond the permissible period of three years” since the land in question is Nazul property, has paradoxically directed in paragraphs 26 and 27 that the shop be allotted to the respondents for the entire period up to 2037–38 and that the conditions be altered accordingly. The said direction is wholly unsustainable in law. The directions contained in paragraphs 25, 26, and 27 of the impugned order create an anomalous and legally untenable situation by conferring rights upon the respondents beyond the permissible period prescribed under the statutory provisions, thereby rendering the impugned directions contrary to law. Hence, this writ appeal.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the impugned order is self-contradictory on the face of the record. The learned Single Judge, in paragraph 25 of the impugned order, has categori