Digitally 2026:CGHC:9782-DB signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI NAFR TIWARI Date:

2026.02.26

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

2 5 .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. I