Raghuvansh Tiwari (in Person) Vs Commissioner

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:56161

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

Reserved for Order on : 14.11.2025

¶6

Order Passed on : 18/11/2025 Order Uploaded on : 18/11/2025

¶7

WPC No. 4380 of 2025

¶8

Raghuvansh Tiwari, S/o. Late Shri Ramadhar Tiwari, Aged About 74 Years R/o H.No. 16/792, Near Vision Centre, Lalganga Colony Marg, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur Pin Code- 492001 (C.G.) Cell Phone No. 94242-17501

¶9

--- Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Commissioner Chhattisgarh Housing Board Paryawas Bhawan, North Block Sector-19, Atalnagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur Pin Code- 492002

¶12

2 - Estate Officer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Capital Project, Division-1, Sector-27, Atalnagar, Nava Raipur- 492002

¶13

--- Respondents ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Raghuvansh Tiwari, petitioner-in-person For Respondents : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate

¶14

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶15

Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.18 17:00:48 +0530

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

CAV Order

¶18

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶19

“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of MANDAMUS directing the respondents either to comply the agreement Clause-11 or to make refund of the deposited amount with 14% interest.

¶20

2

¶21

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any writ order as deem fit in the interest of justice.”

¶22

Petitioner-in-person submits that petitioner has submitted an application for allotment of HIG-II type of house under housing scheme floated by respondents to be constructed at Sector-29, New Raipur, District Raipur. The estimated cost of house as per advertisement was Rs.36.70 Lakhs. At the time of registration, petitioner deposited Rs.5.60 Lakhs with respondent No.2. Allotment of the house was to be made by draw of lots. On the date fixed for drawing lots, petitioner was not present, however, in the proceeding, petitioner was allotted house No.568, under self financing scheme on 17.02.2012. Cost of the house is to be paid in installments as prescribed in Annexure P-4. Petitioner after getting knowledge about the allotment of house No.568 vide letter dated 16.03.2012, has submitted an application requesting for allotment of other house bearing No.733, 470 of similar type. Application of petitioner for allotment of alternate house as mentioned in the application was not considered and thereafter had issued a letter on 22.05.2015 under the head of last allotment order and the total cost of house was mentioned as Rs.43,22,015.08. The total calculation is made including interest amount also. Petitioner thereafter has filed writ petition bearing WPC No. 2270 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.09.2024 considering subsequent event of refund of major part of amount to petitioner, writ petition was disposed of permitting petitioner to submit representation for his remaining claim. Petitioner submitted representation which came to be rejected by the communication dated 06.03.2025 mentioning that the amount of Rs.11,45,128/- has already been returned back vide cheque dated

¶23

3

¶24

14.05.2018 after deducting 10% of the amount from total deposit. Deduction of the amount of Rs.10% and not awarding interest on the amount so deposited by petitioner @ 12% is highly arbitrary and erroneous. He contended that respondents have released the amount deposited by petitioner of about Rs.12.00 Lakhs, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the interest also. Accepting of the refund of the amount deposited by petitioner is only on the ground that respondents have not considered the claim of petitioner for allotment of alternate house when many of the house were lying vacant in the area.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposes the submission of petitioner and would submit that petitioner submitted application for allotment of house at New Raipur. According to the norms fixed for allotment of the house is by way of draw of lots, in which, petitioner got house No. 568 in drawing of lots. Accordingly it was informed to petitioner. Petitioner thereafter submitted installment of Rs.6,50,128/-. He contended that house No.733 and 470, which petitioner opted in his application for allotment in alternate to the house No.568 allotted to him was of different advertisement, therefore, respondents have not considered it appropriate to allot the alternate house as claimed by petitioner. He contended that respondents have issued notice/letter to petitioner on 03.07.2015 (Annexure R-7) asking petitioner to submit balance amount of cost of house allotted to him bearing No. 568 failing which allotment of house would be cancelled. Allotment of house made in favour of petitioner was cancelled and communicated to him vide letter dated 07.08.2015. He contended that according to the office order dated 08.01.2016, recording of petitioner refused to purchase the house allotted to him and have requested for refund of amount,

¶26

4

¶27

therefore, amount is being returned after deducting 10% of the amount deposited at the time of registration. Accordingly cheque was prepared on 21.12.2016 and was sent through registered post, however, the letter could not be served and it returned unserved in the office of respondents. Petitioner thereafter, wrote a letter on 24.04.2018 mentioning that cheque issued by respondent is not delivered to him for some reasons, therefore, issue new cheque and accordingly thereafter the amount was returned through cheque. The total amount returned was Rs.11,45,128/- after deducting 10% of the registration amount. Petitioner will not be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. Petitioner was liable to pay penalty/interest for not depositing the installment within time, however, the said amount is not deducted from the deposit made by petitioner but deductions of 10% is made as per the conditions under the allotment of house rules and conditions. There is no merit in this petition. In fact after accepting the amount, writ petition has now rendered infructuous.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed along with writ petition.

¶29

Indisputedly, petitioner has submitted an application for allotment of house at New Raipur, District – Raipur in a colony to be developed by respondents. According to procedure prescribed for draw of lots, petitioner was allotted house No.568 by draw of lots. Allotment of house No. 568 was intimated to petitioner and he deposited further installment of Rs.6,50,128/-.

¶30

True it is under Clause No.11 of Annexure P-2 i.e. rule/conditions of allotment of house, prescribes that after registration, house is to be

¶31

5

¶32

allotted by lottery system and further provided that, if a house remains vacant, the allotment may be changed upon payment of the prescribed charges for such change. It is further specified that the decision of the Board in this regard shall be final and no claims shall be entertained. At the time of submission of application, petitioner was aware of rules and conditions for allotment of the house and its procedure. In the aforementioned facts of the case, considering entire Clause-11 of rules and conditions of allotment, which is relied upon by petitioner, it is apparent that it does not confer an indefeasible right upon the petitioner to obtain house of his choice merely by submitting an application for change of the allotted house. It only grants him an option, which remains subject to final decision of the respondents/Board. According to submission of learned counsel for respondents, house opted by petitioner in his application, is not of same advertisement but is of some other advertisement. In the aforementioned facts of the case, petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to get change the house as per his option but it has to be governed in accordance with the procedure, rules and conditions as floated by respondents. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission of petitioner that respondents erred in not considering the claim of petitioner for change of allotted house as opted by him.

¶33

From the documents enclosed along with reply to the writ petition, it is appearing that on account of failure of petitioner to deposit installments of the house in the scheduled time, after giving notice to petitioner to deposit the arrears of installments, had cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 07.08.2015 and further according to the contents of office order, which is not put to challenge by petitioner

¶34

6

¶35

would show that respondent No.2 has passed an order for refund of amount on the request of petitioner vide letter dated 08.01.2016. Petitioner has also deposited the cheque issued towards refund of the amount, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for relief as claimed in Para 10.1 seeking direction to respondents to comply Clause-11 of agreement/rules/conditions of allotment. Accordingly the relief claimed in para 10.1 is rejected.

¶36

So far as the submission of petitioner that respondents have not refunded the entire amount and an amount of Rs.55,000/- is still lying due with respondents is concerned, learned counsel for respondents has made submission referring to Clause-5 of rules/conditions of building allotment that if registration is accepted and applicants wants to refund of the amount so deposited then it is to be returned after deducting 10% of the said amount i.e. amount deposited towards registration, therefore, submission of petitioner that amount of Rs.55,000/- is still due to petitioner is not correct. Petitioner submitted application after reading the rules and conditions of house allotment, which may be forming part of the application as copy of application, purchased from respondents for its submission, therefore, he will not be permitted to turn around and challenge the said clause of Annexure P-2.

¶37

For the aforementioned discussions, I do not find any good ground to grant relief as prayed by petitioner during the course of argument that petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.55,000/- deducted by respondent @ 10% from registration amount deposited by petitioner.

¶38

7

¶39

So far as the claim of petitioner towards interest on the amount deposited by petitioner in the year 2012 and lying with respondent till 2018 is concerned, from the facts of the case, it is appearing that after deposit of the amount towards registration, petitioner has not deposited remaining installment in time, respondents have issued notice/letter to petitioner to deposit the amount and also intimating that if amount is not deposited, allotment of house would stand cancelled for want of deposit of remaining installment. The allotment of house was cancelled by authorities in the year 2015. The cancellation of allotment is on account of default in payment of installment of petitioner, therefore, it will not on account of default on the part of respondents, therefore, in the opinion of this Court petitioner will not be entitled for the interest on the amount deposited by him for purchase of the house and subsequently refunded to him.

¶40

For the foregoing discussions I do not find any merits in this petition and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

Balram

Raghuvansh Tiwari (in Person) v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuvansh Tiwari (in Person) v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Udal Vs Beena

Heeralal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jalsai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshanlal Chahal Vs Panchram @ Pancham Kewat And Ors.

Chand Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Gupta Vs Chhattisgarh State Information Commission