1 2025:CGHC:28248 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5797 of 2022 Sitaram Tamrakar S/o Late Krishna Chandra Tamrakar Aged About 61 Years R/o Hig-11, Laxmi Nivas Colony, Lodhipara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Excutive Officer, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma Vyavsayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer Raipur Development Authority, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma Vyavsayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Revenue Officer(Tahsildar) Raipur Development Authority, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma Vyavsayik Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. RS Baghel, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Satish Gupta, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 26.06.2025 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: “10. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT:- 2 (1). Hon'ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to call for the records of the case from the respondents. (2). Hon'ble Court may be kind be pleased to direct the respondents to complete the formalities for registration of Plot No. B-41/Sector-2 in Kamal Vihar in the name of petitioner or (3). Hon'ble Court may be kind be pleased to direct the respondents to return all the money deposited by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 2,33,625/- (Two Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Fife) and Rs. 20,57,883/-(Twenty Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three) with interest @18% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual return, by issuance of writ of mandamus of any other writ/writs, order/orders. (4). Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Relevant facts of this case are that the petitioner has been allotted two plots by respondent No.1 in it's newly developing colonization scheme known as ‘Kamal Vihar’ at Raipur. The petitioner has deposited full amount of one plot. Later on, petitioner made an application for surrendering one plot (A-49a) and adjusting the registration fees deposited against the payment of remaining one plot (B-41). Instead of accepting the request of the petitioner, the respondents have informed the petitioner that plot no. B-41 has been allotted to original land owner and registration fees of Rs. 2,33,625/- is forfeited and rest of the amount which is Rs. 20,57,883/- will be returned without any interest to him. Without consent of petitioner, registration fees was forfeited and 3 remaining amount was credited in the Bank Account of the petitioner. The denial of preferred plot and unilateral credit of fully paid amount and forfeiture of registration fees for that plot is arbitrary illegal and bad in law. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that action of the respondents in not allotting the plot B-41/Sector-2 is arbitrary and illegal as the petitioner has already deposited the EMD for this plot. There is no communication by respondent no.1 regarding cancellation of allotment of B-41/Sector-2. The act of unilaterally depositing Rs.20,57,883/- without any interest is arbitrary. The act of the respondents in forfeiting Rs.2,33,625/- which is EMD/registration fees for plot no. B/41/Sector-2 for no fault of petitioner is arbitrary and bad in law. Once the respondents have allotted plot no.B-41/Sector-2 to the petitioner after receiving EMD/registration fees, they cannot cancel it unilaterally. The petitioner has been deprived of his property i.e. Plot No. B-41/Sector-2 without any authority of law. Hence, petitioner has come-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 4. Learned State Counsel opposing the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submits that the instant petition is hopelessly barred by delay and latches. Furthermore, petitioner herein despite knowing the factual aspects exhibited an indolent attitude, slept over the matter, did not respond to plethora of demand notices sent by the answering respondent. Now all of a sudden, petitioner has filed the instant petition despite having received the disputed amount of Rs. 20,57,883/- which was already deposited in his bank account by the 4 answering respondent. Vide letter dated 06.05.2015 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner intimated the respondent no.2 that he does not want to purchase plot no. A-49a and wants to only retain plot no. B-41, to which, vide letter dated 29.05.2015 the office of answering respondents clearly replied to the aforesaid letter stating that due to inadvertence plot no. B- 41 (Sector-2) admeasuring 1290.59 Sqft had been advertised for sale and bonafide mistake included in the draw of lots and was already allotted in the name of original land oustee and, therefore, it was not possible to allot the same to the petitioner. In this letter dated 29.05.2015, the petitioner was also informed that the registration charges of plot no. B-41 Sector-2 admeasuring 1290.59 Sqft to the tune of Rs.3,17,063/- was adjusted in the plot no.A-49a Sector-14a admeasuring 1771.20 Sqft, and the amount of cheque given to the tune of Rs.17,40,820/- was also deposited in the account of plot no. A-49a Sector-14a (1771.20 Sqft), the petitioner was requested to deposit the balance amount of Rs.6,87,828/-. Thereafter several reminders for payment of balance amount of Rs. 6,87,828/ were sent to the petitioner on various dates viz 23.09.2017, 30.11.2017, 21.08.2018 and 31.01.2022. Surprisingly none of the above mentioned demand notices were ever challenged by the petitioner and suddenly after an unexplained and inordinate delay of almost 6 years, now the petitioner has come and challenged the letter dated 31.01.2022 (P/5). The petitioner has not raised any dispute or challenged the earlier letters letter dated viz 21.08.2018. 23.09.2017, 30.11.2017 and 21.08.2018. Furthermore, the answering respondents, on the request of the petitioner vide Annexure P/6 dated 11/02/2022 & Annexure P/8 dated 5 10/05/2022 have given personal hearing vide Annexure P/7 and, thereafter, deposited the amount of Rs. 20,57,883/- in the given bank account of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Grievance raised by petitioner in this writ petition is that vide memorandum dated 12.3.2015 petitioner has been allotted Plot No.B- 41/Sector-2 in lottery draw, he deposited the entire amount, but respondent-authority concerned instead of registering the said plot in his favour, refunded the amount so deposited by him on the ground that said plot has already been allotted in favour of original land oustee much prior to lottery draw and it has been inadvertently included in lottery draw system. Further grievance of petitioner is that registration fee of Rs.2,33,625/- deposited by petitioner in respect of Plot No.49A/Sector 14A surrendered by him with respondent-RDA is arbitrarily forfeited by respondent concerned. 7. As per return filed on behalf of respondents, the fact of allotment of Plot No.B-41/Sector-2 in favour of original land oustee has been intimated vide letter dated 29.5.2015. In this letter, petitioner was also informed that amount deposited by him as against Plot No.B-41/Sector-2 including registration charges of Rs.3,17,623/- was deposited in the account of Plot No.49A/Sector 14A and he was requested to deposit balance amount. Thereafter, several reminders, lastly on 31.1.2022, were sent to petitioner for deposit of balance amount, but petitioner did 6 not turn up. 8. From the above mentioned facts it is clear that vide letter dated 29.5.2015 the petitioner has been duly informed by the respondent authorities concerned that Plot No.B-41/Sector-2 cannot be allotted in his favour for the reasons mentioned therein. Instant writ petition seeking direction to respondents to complete formalities for registration of Plot No.B-41/Section-2 in Kamal Vihar in the name of petitioner is filed 19.12.2022 i.e. almost after lapse of more than 7 years. Petitioner has not offered any plausible explanation in writ petition for such an inordinate delay in approaching this Court for grant of reliefs as claimed in writ petition. 9. It is true that there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. It is trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Delay and laches are relevant factors for exercise of equitable jurisdiction. While exercising discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has ample power to refuse the grant of writ of mandamus when it is found that there was delay due to negligence or omission on the part of petitioner. By a catena of decisions, it has been settled that delay defeats equity and Court helps only those who are vigilant and do not slumber over their rights. 10. In case of City & Industrial Devt. Corp. vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala & Ors, reported (2009) 1 SCC 168, the Apex Court has 7 held as under: " It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of Mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be claimed as of right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and the laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a Writ is an adequate ground for refusing a Writ.” 11.In case of State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri & Ors, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 602, the Apex Court has held as under: "A writ court while deciding a writ petition is required to remain alive to the nature of the claim and the unexplained delay on the part of the writ petitioner. Stale claims are not to be adjudicated unless non- interference would cause grave injustice." 12.As discussed above, in the present case, the cause of action, if any, accrued to the petitioner way back in the year 2015 when respondents shown their inability to allot plot in question to petitioner. However, the petitioners did not think it necessary or appropriate to agitate his grievance immediately thereafter or within reasonable period of time. No explanation, what to say satisfactory explanation, for the inordinate delay of seven years in filing writ petition is offered in writ petition. In the absence of any tangible explanation for inordinate delay in approaching this Court for writ of mandamus, no interference is called for in the present petition and writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground 8 of delay and laches as well as on merits. 13.Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being misconceived and devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-