^.1 "7 <? ^Ll-a^,^ IN THE HIGHCQURT OF JUDieATURE AT BILASFUR (C.G) WRIT APPEAL N0. / ^'3 /2007 APPELLANTS Per^Twe/Ls < ^- ,-'(^ M/ s. Uttamchand Dhariwal & CQmpany, Raipur (C.G.) Through its Partner — Inderchand Dhariwal, S/o. Late Shri Uttainchand Dhariwal, Aged about 60years, R/o. 45/4, SadarBazar, Raipur (C.G.) •..^^'' ^ /2. Laxman Sahu, <•••' t^M^ V>0.---1 ^-^y .<-'^" ^ RESPONDENTS K.Ufffn^^a -». ^ J^ r/^'- /^ ^ ^o' y S/o. Konda Sahu, Aged about 65years, /3. Jagar Ram, S/o. Sorasai Sahu, Aged about 58 years, .4. BhagatRam, S/o. Kejau Ram, Agedabout 70 years, 2 to 4 R/o. Village Jora, TahsU & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Departnient of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Collector, Raipur (C.G.) Additional Tahsildar, Raipur (C.G.) • P.N.B. Farmers Welfare Trust, Punjab NationalBank, Kaehhari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 3. 4. T APPEAL UNDER SECTIOW 2'BF 'NHKCaiHAmSGiAMtHiGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISIO BE»®H1AC"!*; aOQiS HIGHCOURT OFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Justicel.M. Quddusiand Hon'ble Shri JusticePrashant Kumar Mishra Writ ADpeal No.173 of 2007 Appellants versus Respondents M/s Uttamehand Dhariwal & Company, Raipurand others State of Chhattisgarh and others Present: Shri Devendra Patel, counsel for the appellants. Ms. Deepali Pandey,Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.4. WritADDealunderSeGtion2(1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Bench)Act, 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Deliveredon 6th April, 2010) Perl.M. Quddusi.J.: Learned counsel appearing forthe parties are heard finally. 2. This writappeal has been fjled againstthe impugned order dated 9-2-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C.) No.199/2007, whereby the writ petition ha.s been dismissed. 3. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 18-11- 2002 passed by the State/respondent No.1 by which the land in dispute has been allotted to respondent No.4, i.e., Punj'ab National Bank Farmers Welfare Trust, Raipur as well as challenging the order dated 17-7-2006 whereby the Statehas rejected the review application filed bythe appellants/petitionersagainst the order dated 18-11-2002. .ii;j.ijjj.ii.;i;i..-. a~3:-B''^ asstt»se*;isK.s®i-A \A-^- 2-- 4. The intention of allotment of the land indisputewas to accord special concession in the training programme inrespectofmembers of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and landless farmers. Theland was not to be used for any commercial purpose, therefore, the conditional allotment was made and if there is any breach of condition, it isalways open for the State Government to cancel the allotment. 5. The appellants/petitioners have no /ocus standi to challenge the said allotment of land as they are not adversely affected persons. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellantssubmitted that there is widening of road and for that purpose the land would be required. It is not the appellants who are going towiden the road. If widening of road is to be done, it is to be done bythe State Government. Therefore, the State Government is the competent authority to decide whether the land already allotted to respondent No.4 should be continued with it or in alternative any other land is to be allotted as it would also a matter of consideration that in case any infrastructure has already been developed for the purpose of imparting training, it would certainly harm the training programme in respect of those who ,have been given special concession, i.e., the landless farmers and the members ofthe Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes. Therefore, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The writ appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. SdA I.M. Quddusi ^ ? Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge