[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Raghuvansh Tiwari vs Commissioner on 25 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by 2026:CGHC:9782-DB
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.02.26 NAFR
10:40:37
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 186 of 2026
Raghuvansh Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ramadhar Tiwari, Aged About 74
Years R/o H.No. 16/792, Near Vision Centre, Lalganga Vihar Colony
Marg, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur Pin Code- 492001 (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Paryawas Bhawan,
North Block Sector-19, Atalnagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur Pin Code-
492002
2 - Estate Officer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Capital Project, Divi-
sion-1, Sector-27, Atalnagar, Nava Raipur- 492002
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Manish Thakur, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
25.02.2026
1 Heard Mr. Manish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant as
well as Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents on I.A. No.01, which is an application for
condonation of delay of 10 days in preferring the appeal.
2 For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same
is allowed. Delay of 10 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby
condoned.
3 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order
dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC
No.4380 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ
petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed.
4 Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge
were that the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to
the respondents to either comply with Clause-11 of the terms and
conditions of the housing scheme floated at Sector-29, New
Raipur, District Raipur, by allotting him an alternate HIG-II house
of his choice, or in the alternative, to refund the deposited amount
along with interest @ 14% per annum. The petitioner had applied
for allotment of a house under the self-financing scheme and
deposited an initial registration amount of Rs.5.60 lakhs. Upon
draw of lots held on 17.02.2012, House No.568 was allotted to
him. Subsequently, instead of accepting the allotted house, the
petitioner requested allotment of alternate houses bearing
Nos.733 and 470, which request was not acceded to by the
authorities.
5 It was the case of the petitioner that despite several vacant
houses being available, his request for change of allotment was
arbitrarily rejected. Thereafter, due to non-payment of further
installments within stipulated time, the allotment was cancelled on
07.08.2015. The petitioner sought refund of the deposited
amount, and a sum of Rs.11,45,128/- was refunded after
deducting 10% of the registration amount in accordance with the
terms and conditions of allotment. Aggrieved by the rejection of
his representation seeking refund of the deducted amount and
interest on the deposited sum, the petitioner approached this
Court.
6 The respondents contended before the learned Single Judge that
the allotment was strictly made by draw of lots as per prescribed
rules; that the alternate houses sought by the petitioner were
under a different advertisement; and that the cancellation
occurred due to default on the part of the petitioner in not
depositing installments. It was further submitted that deduction of
10% of the registration amount was in terms of the applicable
conditions of allotment and that the petitioner, having accepted
the refunded amount, was not entitled to claim further relief.
7 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner
did not have any indefeasible right to seek allotment of a house of
his choice under Clause-11 of the terms and conditions of the
housing scheme, and that the change of allotment was purely
discretionary and subject to the final decision of the competent
authority. It was further held that since the allotment of House
No.568 was cancelled on account of default committed by the
petitioner in not depositing the installments within the stipulated
time, the cancellation could not be faulted.
8 The learned Single Judge also held that deduction of 10% of the
registration amount while refunding the deposited sum was in
accordance with the applicable rules and conditions governing the
scheme, to which the petitioner had agreed at the time of
submitting his application. Further, as the cancellation of allotment
was attributable to the petitioner's own default and not due to any
lapse on the part of the respondents, the petitioner was not
entitled to claim interest on the refunded amount. Accordingly,
finding no merit in the claims raised, the writ petition was
dismissed.
9 Challenging the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge in the writ petition being WPC No.4380 of
2025, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ
petitioner.
10 Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/appellant submits that the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not
sustainable in the eye of law, as material facts and relevant
clauses governing the House Allotment Scheme were not properly
appreciated. It is contended that the appellant had submitted a
detailed representation dated 19.06.2015 raising grievances with
regard to escalation of cost and seeking change of the allotted
house in terms of Clause 11 of the Terms & Conditions, however,
the same was not duly considered by the competent authority,
though Respondent No.1 is the final authority under Clause 33 to
resolve such disputes. It is further submitted that the learned
Single Judge failed to consider that the appellant was always
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the
respondents unilaterally enhanced the cost of the house from
Rs.36.70 lakhs to Rs.43,22,015.08, contrary to Clauses 5, 23(a)
and 27 of the governing conditions, thereby materially altering the
terms of allotment.
11 It is further contended that the respondents cancelled the
allotment without properly considering the appellant's request for
change of house despite availability of unallotted units, which
action is contrary to Clause 11 of the scheme. The appellant had
deposited more than Rs.12 lakhs, which remained with the
respondents for several years, yet no interest was awarded and
10% of the registration amount was deducted arbitrarily. It is
urged that the respondents did not act in accordance with
principles of fairness, equity and good conscience, and learned
Single Judge erred in overlooking these aspects and dismissing
the writ petition without adequately examining the contractual and
statutory obligations binding upon the Housing Board.
12 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Single
Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition after due
consideration of the facts and the applicable terms and conditions
governing the housing scheme. It is contended that the allotment
of the house was made strictly through a draw of lots as per the
notified procedure, and the appellant was duly allotted House
No.568. The request for change of house was not a matter of right
but was subject to the discretion of the competent authority under
Clause 11 of the Terms & Conditions. It is further submitted that
the alternate houses sought by the appellant were part of a
different scheme/advertisement and, therefore, could not have
been allotted in substitution of the originally allotted unit.
13 It is further submitted that the allotment was cancelled only after
repeated notices were issued to the appellant to deposit the
remaining installments, and the cancellation occurred due to his
own default. As per Clause 5 of the allotment rules, refund upon
cancellation at the instance or default of the allottee is subject to
deduction of 10% of the registration amount, which has been duly
applied. The appellant, having accepted the refunded amount
without protest and without challenging the relevant clauses of the
scheme, cannot now seek to reopen the contractual terms. It is
thus contended that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the
action of the respondents, nor any error in the reasoning adopted
by the learned Single Judge warranting interference.
14 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at
length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have
also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order
dated 18.11.2025 passed in WPC No. 4380 of 2025.
15 After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single
Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:-
"5. 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/-.
6. 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
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.
7. 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 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. For the foregoing discussions I do not find any
merits in this petition and accordingly it is
dismissed."
16 It is not in dispute that the appellant had applied for allotment of a
house under the housing scheme floated by the respondents and
that House No.568 was allotted to him through draw of lots in
accordance with the prescribed procedure. Clause 11 of the
Terms and Conditions clearly stipulates that allotment is to be
made by lottery system and that any change in allotment, if
permissible, would be subject to the decision of the competent
authority. The said clause does not confer any indefeasible or
vested right upon an allottee to demand allotment of a particular
house of his choice. The learned Single Judge has rightly held
that the appellant could not, as a matter of right, insist upon
allotment of alternate houses, particularly when the respondents
have stated that the houses sought by the appellant were under a
different advertisement/scheme. We do not find any infirmity in
such finding.
17 The record further reveals that the allotment in favour of the
appellant was cancelled only after he failed to deposit the
remaining installments within the stipulated time despite issuance
of notices. Thus, the cancellation was occasioned by the
appellant's own default. The consequential refund of the
deposited amount after deduction of 10% of the registration
amount has been made strictly in terms of Clause 5 of the
applicable rules and conditions, which formed part of the allotment
scheme and were accepted by the appellant at the time of
submission of his application. The appellant, having accepted the
refunded amount, cannot be permitted to approbate and
reprobate by challenging the very conditions governing the
scheme. Similarly, in the absence of any fault attributable to the
respondents in cancellation of allotment, the claim for payment of
interest on the refunded amount has rightly been rejected.
18 We are unable to accept the contention that the learned Single
Judge failed to consider material aspects of the matter. On the
contrary, the impugned order reflects due consideration of the
clauses relied upon by the appellant and a proper appreciation of
the contractual terms governing the parties. No arbitrariness,
perversity or jurisdictional error is demonstrated so as to warrant
interference in intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
19 For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the present writ
appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
