1 CGHC010133382023 2026:CGHC:41196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2029 of 2023 Amin Khan S/o Shri Ataahullah Khan Aged About 49 Years R/o Near Masjid, Vidhansabha Road, Mowa Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry Of Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex, Nawa Raipur (Atal Nagar) Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub- Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Raipur Development Authority Through Chief Executive Officer, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Revenue Officer (Tehsildar) Raipur Development Authority, New Rajendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Anway Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.4 & 5 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 22.09.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner assails the action of the respondent authorities in levying interest of Rs.5,02,035/- on the amount payable for allotment of a developed plot in exchange for the petitioner's acquired land, and seeks refund of the said YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.22 17:46:31 +0530 2 amount, contending that the delay was attributable to the respondent authorities themselves. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling the relevant records from the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue direction to the respondent authorities to return the imposed interest amount from the respondent authorities and further direct the respondent authorities to compensate the petitioner for the wrong done against him. 10.3 Cost of the proceedings. 10.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's land bearing Khasra No.448/7, admeasuring 0.034 hectare, situated at Village Devpuri, P.H. No.114/52, Raipur, was acquired for Town Development Scheme-4 (Kamal Vihar), and although the petitioner had expressed his willingness as early as on 04.05.2013, followed by a further application dated 26.04.2018, to obtain a developed plot in exchange thereof, the respondent authorities failed to take any decision for several years. It is submitted that only on 10.01.2022, the petitioner was called upon to deposit 3 Rs.10,71,450/-, which included Rs.5,02,035/- towards interest for the period from 01.07.2012 to 06.02.2020, despite the delay being attributable to the respondent authorities. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner, having no option, deposited the demanded amount under protest and thereafter an agreement was executed on 28.03.2023 in respect of Plot No.B-223, Sector-9, Kamal Vihar, followed by execution of the sale deed. It is contended that levy of interest for the period during which the petitioner's applications remained unattended by the respondent authorities is arbitrary and unsustainable, and the petitioner is therefore entitled to refund of the interest amount paid under protest. 4. Learned State counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the State authorities are only formal parties and no specific relief has been sought against them. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner, with full knowledge of the demand raised by the respondent authorities, voluntarily accepted the offer for allotment of Plot No.B-223, Sector-9, and deposited the entire demanded amount of Rs.10,71,450/- on 28.02.2022. It is submitted that the said amount was deposited pursuant to the resolution dated 24.11.2021 of the Board of Directors and the memo dated 10.01.2022, and thereafter the agreement dated 4 28.03.2023 was executed. Having accepted the offer and acted upon the same, the petitioner cannot subsequently approbate and reprobate by challenging the levy of interest, particularly when he did not approach this Court before depositing the demanded amount. 6. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 further submits that the petitioner had not given his consent for allotment of the developed plot before depositing the amount with the Land Acquisition Officer, and the amount was accordingly deposited with the said authority. It is contended that the petitioner deposited the amount on 28.02.2022, whereas the present petition was filed only on 19.04.2023, i.e. after a considerable delay of more than one year, and therefore, on this ground also, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner, pursuant to the memo dated 10.01.2022, was required to deposit a sum of Rs.10,71,450/- for allotment of the developed plot in exchange for the acquired land. The petitioner admittedly deposited the said amount on 28.02.2022 and thereafter, accepted the offer and proceeded with execution of the agreement dated 28.03.2023. The petitioner, having voluntarily acted upon the terms of the offer and accepted the allotment, cannot subsequently challenge the levy of 5 interest after having availed the benefit of the said arrangement. Further, the petitioner has approached this Court only after a considerable lapse of time and without challenging the demand before depositing the amount. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the challenge raised by the petitioner to the levy of interest, after having accepted and acted upon the terms of allotment, is not maintainable. The petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time. Consequently, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/-/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh