Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 09.04.2025 Order passed on 25.06.2025 WPC No. 1187 of 2024 1 - Vinod Medical Systerms Pvt. Ltd., Through Managing Director Shri Suresh Rathi, S/o Late Shri Jethmal Rathi Agea About 61 Years, R/o S-10/11, Jeevan Vihar Colony Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - Raipur Development Authority Though The Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, Bhakta Mata Karma Parishar New Rajendra Nagar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate appearing on behalf
Legal Reasoning
of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Order 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks enforcement of the obligation undertaken by the respondent authority to confer freehold rights in accordance with the Raipur Development Scheme pertaining to Devendra Nagar. The Petitioner is a Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI permanent leaseholder of residential property bearing House No. B1-02, admeasuring 4000 square feet, forming part of Khasra No. 2 113/2, situated within the RDA Colony under Scheme No. 32 of Devendra Nagar, located at Mouja Fafadih, Sector-01, Sai Nagar (Devendra Nagar), Raipur, Shahid Kalyan Ward No. 35, P.H. No. 108/38/48, R.I.C. Raipur-1, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. In pursuance of the scheme, the petitioner submitted an application for the grant of freehold rights along with the requisite fees on 08.09.2021 and 02.11.2021, having duly complied with all procedural and legal formalities. However, despite the completion of all requisite steps, the respondent authority has failed to grant the said freehold rights. Furthermore, on 17.12.2021, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Chairman, Raipur Development Authority. Although the matter was previously adjudicated in WPC No. 3486 of 2022 and a No Objection Certificate was subsequently issued in compliance with the said order, the respondent authority has continued to withhold the grant of freehold rights, necessitating the filing of the present petition. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs : - “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue calling the relevant records pertaining to case of the petitioner from the respondent authorities concerned for its kind perusal. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondent authorities to grant free -hold right to the petitioner in accordance with law. 3 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondents to grant the free hold right to the petitioner within the time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondent authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded in the favour of the petitioner. 10.5 Cost of the proceedings. 10.6 Any other writs & directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the permanent leaseholder of a residential property bearing House/Plot No. B01- 2, admeasuring 4000 square feet, being part of Khasra No. 113/2, situated at the RDA Colony under the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) Scheme of Devendra Nagar (Sai Nagar), specifically Scheme No. 32, Sector-01, Patwari Halka No. 108/38/48, RIC Raipur-1, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Raipur Development Scheme, the petitioner submitted an application dated 08.09.2021 seeking the grant of freehold rights over the said property. In response, the respondent authority, through its Revenue Officer (Tehsildar), issued a communication vide Letter 4 No. 10235 dated 30.10.2021, directing the petitioner to fulfill certain conditions required for the conversion of leasehold to freehold rights. These conditions included payment of “Bhu- Bhatak Rashi” for four years, conversion fees, GST, and other applicable charges totaling Rs. 5,60,924/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Four only), to be deposited on or before 18.11.2021. The petitioner, in prompt compliance, deposited the entire amount on 30.10.2021 itself against UTR No. HDFCR52021103074602998 into Axis Bank Account No. 537010100012731 and duly informed the Revenue Officer, Raipur Development Authority of the same via communication dated 02.11.2021. Prior to this, the petitioner had already fulfilled the condition regarding public notice publication, which was carried out on 15.09.2021 and 16.09.2021, as communicated to the Authority by letter dated 17.09.2021. Despite due compliance with all formalities as per law, no further action was initiated by the respondents toward granting the freehold rights. Left with no alternative, the petitioner addressed a representation dated 17.12.2021 to the Chairman of the Raipur Development Authority, seeking intervention and either immediate grant of freehold rights or, alternatively, issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) so that the rights of petitioner are not indefinitely stalled due to administrative inaction. When no effective response followed, the matter was brought before this Hon’ble Court by way of W.P. (C.) No. 3486 of 2022, wherein directions were issued, pursuant to which the respondents issued 5 a No Objection Certificate, as evidenced by the order dated 09.09.2022 and its compliance. Yet, despite judicial intervention and procedural compliance, the freehold rights have not been granted to the petitioner till date. It is pertinent to mention that similarly situated individuals holding property in the same block at Devendra Nagar have already been granted freehold rights, as evidenced by the certificate dated 23.01.2017. The continued inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, despite full compliance by the petitioner, constitutes an arbitrary and unreasonable delay, amounting to denial of the legal right of petitioner protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioner is left with no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for redressal of the injustice caused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to grant freehold rights to the petitioner, despite due compliance with all statutory requirements and procedural formalities, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner has been awaiting the fulfillment of statutory obligations by the respondents since 08.09.2021, having complied in good faith with all directions, including payment of the requisite fees and observance of public notice formalities. The prolonged delay on the part of the respondents, without any justifiable cause, has caused grave hardship to the petitioner, who is now unable to manage his 6 personal and financial affairs effectively, thereby necessitating the urgent intervention of this Hon’ble Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the respondents are acting in a whimsical and arbitrary manner, which is inconsistent with the established principles of administrative fairness and constitutional governance. The factual matrix of the present case clearly demonstrates that despite the petitioner fulfilling all legal conditions and even after judicial intervention in W.P. (C.) No. 3486 of 2022, the freehold rights have not been conferred, thereby rendering the conduct of respondents manifestly unreasonable and contrary to law. It is also submitted that the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the principle of legitimate expectation, both well-settled in law, particularly as reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalaram vs. Jaipur Development Authority, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 31, squarely apply to the present case. The respondents, being State instrumentalities, are bound to act fairly and cannot resile from their representations once the petitioner has altered his position to his detriment based on such assurances. Moreover, the inaction of the respondent authorities infringes the fundamental rights of petitioner under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly the right to equality, the right to property under Article 300-A, and the right to livelihood and dignity. Such unjustified administrative apathy amounts to denial of constitutionally guaranteed protections and entitlements. In light of the above- stated grounds and the detailed factual background of the case, it 7 is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the present petition and issue appropriate directions for the immediate grant of freehold rights to the Petitioner in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable either on facts or in law, and no interference by this Hon’ble Court is warranted in the reliefs sought by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) is a statutory authority established by the State Government under Sections 38 and 40 of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, through a notification dated 07.04.1977, published in the Rajpatra (Extraordinary) on 29.04.1977, with the mandate of ensuring planned urban development, including the preparation and implementation of development and zoning plans. The petitioner in the present case is a lessee of Bhukhand No. B1-02, admeasuring 4000 square feet, situated at Khasra No. 113/2, under Scheme No. 32 of the RDA—Devendra Nagar (Commercial Complex) Scheme, Pandri Terai, Raipur—holding permanent leasehold rights over the said property. It is admitted that the petitioner, by application dated 08.09.2021, requested the grant of freehold rights over the aforementioned land; however, the said application could not be acted upon due to the pendency of investigation by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Raipur. The file of petitioner, along with numerous others concerning the 8 scheme, had been seized by the EOW in connection with a criminal complaint alleging that unlawful benefits were conferred upon various allottees under Scheme No. 32, including improper execution of leases, thereby causing loss to the public exchequer. Pursuant to this, after preliminary enquiry, a formal investigation was initiated and the matter remains under active scrutiny. In this context, the Board of Directors of the respondent authority, in its meeting held on 30.01.2023 under Agenda Item No. 11, resolved that only limited actions, such as the issuance of No Objection Certificates (NOC), encumbrance certificates, mutation after death, or documentation required for loans, may be processed upon submission of certified copies from the EOW and necessary affidavits. Notably, conversion from leasehold to freehold was specifically excluded from the list of permissible actions under the resolution, pending the outcome of the investigation. Nevertheless, in response to a representation dated 17.12.2021 by the petitioner, and in good faith, the respondent authority granted an NOC to the petitioner on 20.10.2022, without prejudice to the ongoing inquiry. It is reiterated that due to the subsistence of the criminal investigation by EOW, the seizure of relevant documents, and the binding policy decision taken by the Board of the RDA, the respondent authority is legally and administratively restrained from granting freehold rights to the petitioner at this stage. In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that
Decision
this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merit and premature in nature, and pass such further 9 orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection. 6. From the pleadings and documents placed on record, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has duly complied with all the conditions required for the grant of freehold rights. He has deposited the requisite premium amount of Rs. 5,60,924/- way back on 30.10.2021 and fulfilled other procedural conditions including public notice and submission of representation. It is also not in dispute that the respondent - RDA, being fully aware of the compliance made by petitioner, have nevertheless withheld the freehold rights citing pendency of investigation before the EOW and the consequential Board decision. It is also not denied that the Board of Directors of RDA has taken a policy decision that, once the matters involving seized files are cleared by the EOW, necessary proceedings for grant of freehold rights may be undertaken in respect of such applicants, including the petitioner. Since a policy decision has been taken in this regard, and the same has not been challenged as arbitrary or discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the scope for judicial interference is inherently limited. It is well settled that Courts do not interfere with policy decisions of the executive unless they are shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory in nature. 10 Article 14 of the Constitution would come into play if a Government policy or its implementation fails to meet the test of reasonableness or results in hostile discrimination. However, in the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision of the respondent authority to await clearance from EOW before conferring freehold rights is unreasonable or arbitrary. Rather, the said decision appears to be guided by administrative caution and in compliance with law enforcement proceedings. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no positive direction can be issued at this stage for execution of a freehold lease deed in favour of the petitioner. However, since the petitioner has fulfilled all necessary conditions and has been awaiting resolution for a substantial period, a direction is required to ensure administrative diligence and prevent indefinite delay. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate representation afresh, along with a copy of this order, before the Chief Executive Officer, Raipur Development Authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon such submission of representation, the respondent authority shall, within a further period of four weeks, approach the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Raipur, to seek necessary permission / clearance for initiating action in respect of the case of petitioner. In the event that such permission is granted by the EOW, the respondent authority shall thereafter proceed to grant freehold 11 rights to the petitioner in accordance with law and relevant policy. 9. It is clarified that the limited direction issued herein is only for the purpose of expediting the process of seeking permission from EOW and not to pre-judge the merits of the investigation or administrative action pending therein. 10. With this observation and direction, this writ petition disposed of. No order as to costs. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge