1 CGHC010309182021 2026:CGHC:36984 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4769 of 2021 1. Ram Sahaye Mishra (Died Through Lra) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 11-07-2025 1.1 - Sunil Mishra S/o Ram Sahaye Mishra Aged About 62 Years Presently R/o D-302, Sundar Nagar Behind Pt. Sundarlal Sharma School Raipur (C.G.) 1.2 - Tushar Kant Mishra S/o Ram Sahaya Mishra Aged About 67 Years Presently R/o D-302, Sundar Nagar Behind Pt. Sundarlal Sharma School Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. 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, 492002, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Manager Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Sector 19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 & 3 Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, Advocate SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 18/08/2026 1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, the Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction or order calling upon the entire record from the respondents pertaining to the matter of the petitioner. 10.2. That, the Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction or order of appropriate nature quashing the impugned order 24.11.2017 (Annexure P-2) so far as it related to the quantum of construction amount, which is being arbitrary calculated as per the SOR 2009 and thereby direct the respondents to grant the petitioner a construction cost with the latest PWD SOR on record. 10.3. That, the Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction or order of appropriate nature quashing the impugned order 07.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) so far as it related to the number of plots granted to the petitioner, whereby only one plot & one house is allotted to the petitioner and thereby direct the respondents to grant the petitioner two plots & two houses along with equivalent area of garden farm as acquired from the petitioner. 3 10.4. That, the Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction or order of appropriate nature commanding the respondent authorities to disburse the 1st instalment of construction as per the PWD SOR 2020. 10.5. That, the Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction or order of appropriate nature granting the petitioner an appropriate compensation due to the mental and physical agony sustained by the petitioner due to the act and omission on the part of the respondents. 10.6. That, the Court may kindly be pleased any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that house and land of petitioners situated in village Rakhi, RI Circle Mandirhasaud, Tehsil Aarang District Raipur were acquired by respondent No.2 and 3 by mutual consent under the scheme formulated by them in this regard. He submits that apart from monetary compensation with respect to land under the scheme, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are required to provide a house in lieu of the house constructed over the land, subject matter of acquisition. Two houses of petitioners were standing on the lands which were subject matter of acquisition and therefore, original petitioner was entitled for two plots. However, in contravention of the scheme formulated by 4 respondent No.2 and 3, they have allotted only one plot of 2000 sq. ft. bearing No.C-322 in stead of two plots. He next contended that according to the scheme, respondent No.2 and 3 are required to provide financial assistance to petitioners for construction of house over 400 sq. ft. of the area of plot. However, while computing the cost of construction, respondent No.2 and 3 have taken into consideration the schedule of rates of Public Works Department (PWD) fixed in the year 2009, whereas the order of allotment of plot in favour of petitioners is issued in the year 2016-17 therefore, the schedule of rates prevailing on the date of allotment ought to have been taken into consideration for computing the cost of construction of house. 3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposes the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioners’ house was not constructed in the abadi basti of village Rakhi and it was constructed in lagani land i.e. agriculture land. According to the scheme, alternate plot and cost of construction is to be awarded of the house situated in abadi basti only. He also pointed out that he has filed a copy of the letter written by respondent No.2 and 3 dated 30.7.2026 informing this fact to the petitioners. It is also mentioned in this letter that name of petitioners did not find in the survey list as the person possessing of two houses. 5 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that grievance of petitioners is against respondent No.2 and 3. 5. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 6. Perusal of Annexure P-1 and P-2 would show that original petitioner was allotted a plot measuring 2000 sq. ft. in the developed area by respondent No.2 and 3 and cost of construction is assessed as 2,66,441/-. Annexure P-6 is the letter dated 8.7.2021 written to original petitioner mentioning that cost of construction is assessed based on SOR of 2009 with addition of 20%. The allotment of plot is of the year 2016- 17 and therefore, cost of construction is to be assessed only on the basis of rates prevailing at that point of time. 7. During course of arguments, when a pin-pointed question is put to learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 as to what were the rates prevailing on the date of allotment of plot, he submits that according to instruction gathered by him telephonically, there was schedule of rate prescribed by PWD for the year 2015. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that while considering similar issue with regard to cost of construction to be awarded to the beneficiary, came up for consideration in WPC No.3205/2020 (Bhola Prasad Choubey 6 (died) through LRs vs State of CG & ors), decided on 09.05.2025, and the Coordinate Bench had observed that petitioner therein is entitled to get amount towards cost of construction of house as per PWD SOR prevailing in the year 2015. He also pointed out that respondent No.2 and 3 have challenged the order dated 09.05.2025 by filing WA No.706/2025 which was also dismissed at motion stage by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 25.9.2025. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 submits that in the order of Hon’ble Division Bench it is clearly observed that the said order would not be treated as a precedent. 10. This writ petition is filed in the year 2021 i.e. prior to passing of the order dated 09.05.2025 in WPC No.3205/2020 and order dated 25.9.2025 in WA No.706/2025. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the issue with regard to applicability of SOR prevailing on the date of allotment of plot to the petitioner is covered with the order passed in WPC No.3205/2020 which was affirmed by Hon’ble Division Bench in WA No.706/2025 vide order dated 25.9.2025. 11. Consequently, the order dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure P-2) so far as it relates to assessment and sanction of cost of construction, is set aside. Respondent No.2 and 3 are directed to recompute the cost of construction of the house on 400 sq. ft. of land on the allotted plot on the basis of SOR of 7 PWD of the year 2015. Other part of the order dated 24.11.2017 (Annexure P-2) shall remain intact. 12. With respect to second contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioners are entitled for two plots is concerned, I find it appropriate to direct the petitioners to submit an application before respondent No.2 and 3 for grant of second plot in lieu of acquisition of their two houses standing over the land, subject matter of acquisition, specifying clauses of acquisition scheme formulated by respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with all relevant and supporting documents. Petitioners will also be at liberty to raise any other grounds and relief in the application for which they are entitled according to the policy. 13. If such an application is submitted by petitioners, respondent Nos.2 and 3 will consider and decide the same in accordance with clauses of the policy/scheme formulated in this regard appreciating the documents to be enclosed by petitioners along with application showing their residential proof. 14. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already computed the cost of construction to be given to petitioners for construction of house as early as in the year 2017 and according to petitioners, the entire amount has not been disbursed, therefore, respondent No.2 and 3 are directed to disburse the cost of construction to be computed in accordance with PWD 8 SOR prevailing in the year 2015 within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. 15. With the above observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of. 16. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-