Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 WA No.706 of 2025 2025:CGHC:49124-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 706 of 2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.25 17:31:59 +0530 1. Naya Raipur Development Authority (Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran) Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Paryavas Bhawan North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 2. Chief Manager Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Smt. Poonam Jadhav W/o Ankit Jadhav Aged About 34 Years R/o Professor Colony, Sector-1, Street 3 H.N. 193, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Yogendra Choubey S/o Bhola Prasad Choubey Aged About 40 Years R/o 49/620, Choubey Atta Chakki, Nehru Nagar Budhatalab Marg, Ward No. 49, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, For State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Additional A.G. Advocates 2 WA No.706 of 2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 25.09.2025 1. Heard. 2.
Decision
The appellants/respondents in the writ petition have filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 3205 of 2020, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the writ petitioners/ respondents herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the writ Court. 3. The brief facts as projected in writ petition by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) is that under the development plan of Naya Raipur, the house of petitioner, namely, Bhola Prasad Choubey (since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives, namely, Smt. Poonam Jadhav and another), situated at Village Rakhi, Revenue Circle Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, was affected and, in lieu thereof, he was allotted a piece of land ad-measuring 2000 sq.ft. of Plot No.(D-19) as also sanctioned the funds to the tune of Rs.3,99,662/- (Three Lakhs Ninty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Two) for the construction of house over an area of 600 sq.ft. 3 WA No.706 of 2025 The petitioner was initially allotted a plot constructed with the house at Village New Rakhi pertaining to House No.”D-94” vide order dated 08.06.2010, amended vide order dated 13.01.2011, but, since it was in dilapidated condition, a request was made by the petitioner on 02.06.2011 before the concerned respondent authorities of NRDA, Raipur for its repair. The alleged allotment of House No.“D-94” was cancelled by the concerned respondent authorities vide order dated 21.09.2015, as the same was found to be let-out to one Raghuvar Singh Jagat, S/o Samund Singh, in violation of Clause 5.9 of the Rehabilitation Scheme and, thereafter, allotted to one Shyamlal vide order dated 22.09.2015. Thereafter, a fresh allotment order dated 07.06.2016 was made by the concerned respondent authorities of NRDA, Raipur allotting the petitioner ad measuring 2000 sq.ft. (Plot No.“D-19”) with a permission to construct over an area of 600 sq.ft. under terms and conditions as stipulated therein, but, the possession of it was, however, provided on 26.05.2017 i.e. after passing of the considerable period of more than 11 months, while sanctioning a sum of Rs.3,99,662/- for the construction of house over an area of 600 sq.ft. vide order dated 10.10.2017. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the alleged sanctioned amount, several representations were made by him on 15.05.2018, 20.07.2018, 19.12.2018 and 19.04.2019. It, however, appears that vide order 4 WA No.706 of 2025 impugned dated 16.12.2019, the concerned respondent authorities of NRDA, Raipur, have amended and changed the allotted Plot No.“D-19” with that of Plot No.“E-9”, while permitting the petitioner to construct the house over an area of 600 sq.ft. along with an amount of Rs.3,99,662/-, as was sanctioned earlier vide order dated 10.10.2017 . But, no reply was, however, given that under what basis, the alleged amount was sanctioned, a request was, therefore, made by the petitioner before the Information Officer on 08.01.2020 seeking the basis, for which, the alleged sanctioned amount was fixed, who in turn, vide its letter dated 06.02.2020 informed while annexing the letter of NRDA, Raipur dated 06.12.2014, that the same has been assessed as per prevailing trend @ 20% above from the CG-PWD SoR, 2009. Petitioner submits that as the final allotment order was issued on 07.06.2016 amended on 16.12.2019, the PWD SoR, 2015, came into existence and, therefore, there was no reason to sanction the alleged amount of Rs.3,99,662/- by enhancing 20% to the old (PWD) SoR, 2009. Even, vide letter dated 14.10.2020, the petitioner was informed that all the beneficiaries, like him, have been provided with a construction cost at PWD SoR of the Year 2015. Thereafter, aggrieved by the action of the authority, the petitioner preferred writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and against which the appellant herein / respondent 5 WA No.706 of 2025 in writ petition have preferred the present appeal. 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/ respondents in writ petitioner reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 09.05.2025 passed in WPC No. 3205 of 2020. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/NRDA submitted that the delay in the present matter is wholly attributable to the writ petitioner himself, inasmuch as the allotment of land was thrice changed at his own request, while similarly situated persons constructed their houses within the stipulated time under the same SOR and financial conditions. The authority, therefore, cannot be penalized for the delay. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge, while quashing the impugned orders dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure P/7) and 16.12.2019 (Annexure P/1), directed that the petitioner be entitled to the amount towards construction as per the PWD SOR of 2015. Grant of such benefit to the petitioner would inevitably open the floodgates for 29 other similarly situated persons, resulting in an additional financial burden of 32,58,000/- upon the ₹ NRDA, Raipur. Thus, because of the delay caused by one petitioner, other allottees would also seek to claim similar benefits, ultimately burdening the public exchequer and therefore prays that the order of the learned Single Judge be set aside. 6 WA No.706 of 2025 6. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, that despite issuance of the allotment order dated 07.06.2016, the possession of the concerned plot was handed over to the respondent herein/writ petitioner after passing of the considerable period of more than 11 months while issuing the possession certificate, dated 26.05.2017 and the construction amount for the said purpose was sanctioned subsequent thereof, i.e. vide order impugned dated 10.10.2017 and 16.12.2019 and no explanation to this effect as to why the huge time was taken by the concerned authorities of NRDA, Raipur, which certainly caused mental torture to the respondent herein and, therefore, he is entitled to be compensated in this regard, therefore, awarded him a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation. 7. Considering the facts of the present case and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 8. The scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition. 7 WA No.706 of 2025 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. 10. It is made clear that the order passed in the instant appeal would not be treated as a precedent. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti