1 / 9 2025:CGHC:50432 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1857 of 2016 Smt. Kanchan Singhania W/o Mr. Anand Singhania, Aged About 40 Years R/o Madhuban, Geeta Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Urban Administration And Development, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattigarh 3 - Municipal Corporation, Raipur, Through The Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Mukhyalay, Near Rang Mandir, Gandhi Chowk, Chotapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur Nagar Nigam Mukhyalay, Near Rang Mandir, Gandhi, Chowk, Chotapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattigarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Advocate For Resp.No. 1 & 2/State : Mr. Kishan Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.14 10:13:58 +0530 2 / 9 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 09/10/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the impugned action on the part of the respondents, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to hold that the petitioner is liable to pay the fees in question at the rate of Rs.10,700/- per sq.mtr. and not Rs.34,000/- per sq.mtr. and resultantly direct the respondents (more specifically the respondents No.3 and 4) to refund the difference amount of Rs.38,43,801/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs forty three thousand eight hundred and one only) to the petitioner along with interest till the date of payment. 10.3. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a colonizer registered under the provision of Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short “Act of 1956”) and Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation and Municipalities (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 2013 (for short “Rules of 2013”). Petitioner purchased land bearing kh. no.163/6 admeasuring 0.139 hectares situated at village- Kota P.H. No.107/37 Tahsil and district- 3 / 9 Raipur. Petitioner thereafter submitted an application seeking permission for development of aforementioned land and according to provision as mentioned under the aforementioned Act of 1956 and Rules of 2013, it is for the Developer/Colonizer to surrender 15% of land owned by him/her subject matter of development or to pay amount in lieu of 15% of land which is to be surrendered . He also clarifies that this option is available to colonizer only when land which is sought to be developed is below 1 acre and, therefore, petitioner intended to deposit amount in lieu of 15% of the land which is mandatory required to be surrendered under the aforementioned provision. Petitioner has submitted her option of making payment of value of 15% of land and has calculated sum of Rs.6,25,500/-. However Municipal Corporation has raised demand of Rs.56,08,980/- fixing the rate of 15% of land at the rate of Rs.34,000/- per square metre, which in view of guidelines issued by the State Govt. was erroneous and, therefore, petitioner has again submitted representation and re-calculated the amount based on Govt. rate as mentioned therein as Rs.10,700/- per square metre vide Annexure P-12 but the said representation was not considered and for want of deposit of amount as calculated by Municipal Corporation, application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission for development of land remained pending consideration before the concerned authority. Thereafter, respondent/corporation has again issued memo dated 20.05.2016 raising demand of Rs.56,08,980/-. Petitioner under protest has deposited the amount for the reason that her pending application for development of land could be processed. He contended that this petition is filed seeking relief of refund of excess amount deposited by the petitioner than what the petitioner is required 4 / 9 to be deposited under the guidelines issued by the State Govt. In support of his contention, he refers to provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of Rules of 2013 (as it then stood) to submit that this provision specifically envisages that value of land should be of un-developed land rate of which to be fixed by the Collector. He submits that according to market rate fixed by the District Valuation Committee, commonly known as Collector Guidelines, mentions rate of undeveloped land situated in between Kota colony to Vivekanand Vidyapeeth up to Gudhiyari Canal as Rs.10700/- per square metre and accordingly petitioner has already calculated and deposited value of land of 15% before Municipal Corporation vide Annexure P-12. Demand of Municipal Corporation is arbitrary and contrary to provision under the Act of 1956 as also Rules framed thereunder i.e. Rules of 2013 and therefore it be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Maruti Lifestyle Colony is a separate covered colony. The land which the petitioner purchased is out of the boundaries of Maruti Lifestyle Colony and therefore petitioner will not be permitted to utilize facility as provided to residents of Maruti Lifestyle Colony and therefore rate as fixed in the guidelines issued by the Collector for Maruti Lifestyle Colony cannot be applied to the case of petitioner. He also pointed out that the Municipal Corporation in its reply has not made any submission on legal aspect but has only stated that as the petitioner has agreed at some point of time to pay said amount and pleaded that petitioner once had shown his intention to pay the amount and therefore she is bound to pay amount calculated by the Municipal Corporation and no specific pleading has been made as to on what basis such calculation is made. 5 / 9 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation/respondents No. 3 & 4 opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that from the map enclosed along with reply filed by the State Govt., it is clearly visible that boundaries of petitioner's plot is connected with boundaries of Maruti Lifestyle Colony and, therefore, the rate as fixed by the Collector under guidelines for Maruti Lifestyle Colony will be applicable and accordingly calculation of amount has been made. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the demand so raised by Municipal Corporation . 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that from the relief as prayed for in this writ petition it is apparent that relief sought by the petitioner is against respondents No. 3 & 4 / Municipal Corporation and, therefore, he is not making any submission on merit of claim of petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a colonizer. She purchased the land description of which is mentioned in preceding paragraph situated within Kota, periphery of Raipur city. It is also not in dispute that petitioner is registered colonizer and she after purchase of land has submitted an application for development of said land. According to provision under Section 292-B of Act of 1956, colonizer is required to surrender 15% of the land owned by him/her for purpose of accommodation for persons belonging to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) of the society. Provision also provides an option to colonizer 6 / 9 who has submitted an application for development of plot less than 1 acre, either to surrender the land of 15% of total area or to deposit the amount in lieu thereof according to value of land as fixed by the Collector. It is also not disputed by Municipal Corporation that area which is sought to be developed by petitioner is less than 1 acre of land 7. In the aforementioned facts of case, the petitioner is having option either to surrender 15% of land subject matter of development or to deposit value of said land. Petitioner opted to deposit value of 15% of the land as per rate fixed by the Collector according to the guidelines published and prevailing at that time. 8. Dispute which is raised in this petition is only with regard to the rate for the purpose of calculation of value of 15% of land. 9. Provision under Section 292-B of the Act of 1956 talks of development of colonies. Provision under Section 292-B (1) (a) and 292-B (1) (c) is relevant for disposal of this petition and therefore they are extracted below for ready reference: “292-B. Development of Colonies - (1) The Registration Certificate granted under Section 292-A shall entitle the colonizer to undertake the development of colonies in the Municipal ta subject to the provisions of this Act, and on the following conditions:- [(a) In every residential colony in the municipal area, out of the total area fifteen percent of the land shall be transferred by the colonizer to the Commissioner economically weaker for section or, alternatively, have to transfer constructed houses to eligible bene-ficiaries on such terms and in such manner as may be prescribed: 7 / 9 Provided that the size, location and number of such houses and other conditions, shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. x x x (c) Where the colony is proposed on a small piece of land area of which is less than one acre, the colonizer shall have the option of depositing into the "Service to Poor Fund" of the Municipal Corporation constituted in terms of Section 128-C, fee at such rate as may be prescribed.” 10. Perusal of the aforementioned provision under Section 292-B (1) (a) would show that it provides for surrender of 15% of land in favour of Commissioner Municipal Corporation for EWS or to transfer constructed houses to beneficiaries. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 292-B of the Act of 1956 envisages that where development is sought for the land less than 1 acre of land, colonizer shall have the option of depositing into the “Service to Poor Fund” of the Municipal Corporation at such rate as may be prescribed. 11. It is not disputed by respondent counsel that area sought to be developed is less than 1 acre of land. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has not disputed that rate by which value of land is to be calculated is the rate fixed by the Collector known as government guidelines. The guidelines which is issued by the State Govt/Collector is enclosed along with writ petition as Annexure P-13. Sr. No.6 of Column 2 of the said guideline deals with Ramkrishna Paramhans Ward and within that area in which the land of petitioner is situated is mentioned in between Kota colony to Vivekanand Vidyapeeth to Gudhiyari canal. Rate fixed as Rs.10700/- per square 8 / 9 metre . Further rate of Rs.34,000/- per square metre is also mentioned for Maruti Lifestyle colony under clause 7 of column no.2. 12. Argument which is advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Maruti Lifestyle Colony is developed residential colony whereas land which is purchased and owned by petitioner is undeveloped plot though situated on side of main road and beside Maruti Lifestyle Colony . It is also argued that Maruti Lifestyle Colony is a separate covered colony developed by another colonizer. Rule 10 of the Rules of 2013 (as it then stood) talks of transfer/reservation of land/plots dwelling units for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Low Income Group (LIG). Sub rule (3) of Rules 10 of 2013 envisages about option of paying fee in lieu of land and clause (a) of sub rule (3) of Rule 10 specifically provides for raw land for the area as prescribed by the District Collector. Under Rule 10 of the Rules of 2013 it is specifically mentioned that value of land should be the value of raw land and not developed land. In Hindi version of aforementioned rule it is clearly mentioned that “amount is to be paid for vfodflr Hkwfe". 13. Submission of learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation is that as the land of petitioner is situated beside Maruti Lifestyle Colony which is valued by the Collector as Rs.34,000/- per square metre and therefore value of 15% of land calculated by the Corporation is based on it, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be erroneous. Value of land for Maruti Lifestyle colony is of developed land and not of raw land/undeveloped land. Value of land fixed for the developed area of land cannot be applied to facts of this case in teeth of Rules of 2013 (as it then stood) 9 / 9 which clearly and specifically provides that value of the land is to be assessed at the rate fixed for raw land/undeveloped land. 14. In the aforementioned facts of case and also provisions of law as discussed above, I am of the considered view that demand raised by Municipal Corporation respondent/No. 3 & 4 vide its letter/memo dated 20.05.2016 (Annexure P-14) mentioning rate of land as Rs.34,000/- is not sustainable and it is hereby quashed. Respondents No. 3 & 4 is directed to issue fresh memo calculating the amount as mentioned in the Collector/Govt. Guidelines issued vide Annexure P-13 for the land situated within Kota colony under clause 6 of column No. 2 of the said guideline as Rs.10700/- per square metre and after deducting the said calculated amount, excess amount so deposited by petitioner shall be returned to her within period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. In the facts of case where the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount according to demand raised by the Municipal Corporation on 20.05.2016 though under protest, it is directed that excess amount to be returned back to petitioner shall carry interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of amount deposited by the petitioner till the date of return of amount by the Municipal Corporation. 16. With the above observations and direction writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen