1 2026:CGHC:11625 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 974 of 2026 Sanjay Agrawal S/o Lt. Shri Radheshyam Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o 2/5, Nehru Nagar, West Bhilai, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners. versus 1 - Director Town And Country Planning Office At- Indrawati Bhawan, Block 4 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Awas Land Paryavaran Vibhag, C.G. Mahanadi Bahwan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur (C.G) 3 - The Joint Director Town And Coundtry Planning- Durg, Office Behind Collectorate, Durg (C.G.) 4 - Secretary District Regularization Authority, District- Durg (C.G) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector- Durg, Collectorate Office Durg (CG) ... Respondent(s) (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For Res/State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, PL. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 11/03/2026 Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.03.11 16:50:06 +0530 2 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- "10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.5 to refund the amount of Rs.1,38,375/- deposited on 30.07.2018 by the Petitioner's father, along with appropriate interest. 10.3 Declare the action of the Respondents in retaining the aforesaid amount as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. 10.4 Pass such order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner, the late Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, had submitted an application on 26.08.2016 before the respondent Authority seeking regularization of the existing development raised upon the property situated at 2/5, Nehru Nagar (West), Bhilai, under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Anadhikrit Vikas Ka Niyamitikaran Adhiniyam, 2002. Thereafter, a demand notice was issued for an amount of Rs.1,38,375/-, which was duly paid by the petitioner's father on 30.07.2018. However, despite the payment, no certificate of regularization was issued. He further submits that on 12.02.2022, the father of the petitioner expired, and subsequently, on 22.02.2023, the petitioner, being the legal heir, applied for regularization. Although the petitioner specifically requested for the adjustment of the amount previously deposited by his father, but the respondents did not consider the prayer and issued a fresh demand notice for the payment of Rs.1,27,899/- as regularization charges. In order to avoid further delay, the petitioner deposited the said 3 amount on 07.12.2023 through a challan from the State Bank of India. Thereafter, on 13.12.2023, the certificate of regularization was issued in respect of the subject property in favour of the petitioner. 3. He next submits that although the certificate has been issued, but no order has been passed by the respondent Authority regarding the adjustment of the earlier amount of Rs.1,38,375/- deposited by the petitioner's father. Despite repeated requests made by the petitioner, the amount deposited by the petitioner's father has neither been returned nor adjusted. In view of such submissions, counsel submits that, at this stage, this petition may be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for the refund of the said amount, with a direction to consider the same within a stipulated time. 4. Learned State counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the limited prayer of the petitioner, at this stage, this writ petition is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to move a fresh representation before respondent Nos.3 to 5 within a period of 15 days from today. Upon receipt of the said representation, the same shall be considered by the aforesaid respondents within a further period of 30 days. Furthermore, if the respondents find that the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the subject amount, the same shall be refunded within the aforementioned period. 6. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay