1 2026:CGHC:17596 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2359 of 2017 1 - Vishnu Ray S/o Visheshwar Ray, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Rakhi, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil Arang, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Managing Director Through General Manager (Rehabilitation) Naya Raipur Development Authority, Rajdhani Parisar - 19, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Siddhant Das on behalf of Mr. Praveen Das, Advocate For Res./State No.2 & 3 : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 17.04.2026 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the amended order dated 09.07.2015, whereby respondents No.1 had arbitrarily allotted one house bearing No.A-1000/185 against acquisition of two houses BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 situated on two different plots one bearing Plot No.240/1 and another on Plot No.240/3 seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record of the NRDA (rehabilitation policy) for it’s kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ for changing the amendment order (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent authorities and make a direction to allot the house separately in the name of petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief/relief’s which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was having one house situated at abadi land bearing Plot No./House No.240/1. House of petitioner along with house of other persons of village Rakhi situated on abadi land including separate house of family members of petitioner were acquired according to the policy formulated by respondent No.1. Persons whose house were acquired and ousted from their residential house, respondent No.1 has to allot one house by constructing over specified area of land. According to his instructions, all persons named in the document (Annexure P-3) had been allotted separate house. Father of petitioner, who was having a separate house bearing No.240/3 was also initially allotted a house bearing No. A-191. Based on the request of Visheshwar Ray (father of petitioner), respondent No.1 has allotted house No.185 in substitution of earlier allotment of the house No.191. Copy of the order allotting house No.A-191 is dated 27.03.2010. He next contended that father of petitioner thereafter had made request and representation before the 3 authorities for change of house allotted to him, accordingly father of petitioner was allotted House No.185 vide order dated 18.07.2011. When after lapse of long time, petitioner has not been allotted any house according to the policy and the scheme formulated by the respondent No.1, he made representation and request before the authorities. Respondents thereafter had issued an amended order on 09.07.2015 mentioning two houses i.e. house of petitioner bearing No.240/1 and house of father of petitioner as No.240/3 against the allotment of one house bearing No.A-1000-185. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that from the contents of the amended order dated 09.07.2015, it is apparent that house No. 185 is allotted by way of amendment against the earlier allotment of the house. It is not that two houses have been allotted against two houses. He submits that according to his instruction, house No.332 is lying vacant in the same area, therefore, direction be issued to respondent authorities to allot the house No.332 in favour of petitioner against the acquisition of his house No.240/1. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with respect to the acquisition of house situated in the abadi land of residents of village Rakhi. He also do not dispute that according to list prepared, house of petitioner is mentioned as 240/1 and house of father of petitioner is separately mentioned as 240/3 along with the other villagers. He contended that allotment proceedings have been done strictly in accordance with the decision taken by the respondents authorities and no discrimination has been made. Counsel is also not disputing that the documents enclosed along with writ petition, rejoinder as also application for 4 taking documents on record. However, he submits that allotment of house vide Annexure P-1, does not call for any interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. Upon putting specific query, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that houses which were subject matter of acquisition by respondent No.1, owners of houses have been compensated by allotting separate house constructed on the specified area. 6. Perusal of the documents (Annexure P-3) placed in record would show that it is a list prepared by Additional Tahsildar Mandir Hasaud submitted before respondent No.1 mentioning therein that house owned and possessed by persons named therein, situated at abadi/grass land. In the list as many as 36 persons have been named including name of petitioner at Sr. No.14 mentioning his house No.240/1 situated on abadi land. Shriti Sarkar, D/o. Visheshar house No.240/2, Visheshwar Ray (father of petitioner) house No.240/3 and Vidhan Ray (brother of petitioner) as house No. 240/4. According to the list prepared, all the persons are having separate house in their name and house numbers are also differently mentioned. 7. According to the documents Annexure R-2, Shriti, D/o. Visheshwar Ray has been allotted house No.D-400/128, Vidhan Ray, S/o. Visheshwar Ray was allotted house No. A-1000/194, however, in that document, house No. A-1000/185 has been shown to be allotted against two houses bearing No.240/1 (in the name of petitioner) and 240/3 (in the name of father of petitioner, Visheshwar). 5 8. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner that all the persons who were dispossessed from the houses have been allotted separate houses is not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.1. If that be so then non-allotting house to petitioner would be discriminatory in nature, which is not permissible in the eyes of law, when allotment of house to ouster from house is to be made under the policy to each of the house owners. Petitioner has been shown to be recorded owner of the separate house as per the list prepared by the Additional Tahsildar and relied upon by learned counsel for respondent no.1 for the proceedings of the allotment. Non-allotment of house to petitioner is per-se arbitrary on the part of the respondent authorities, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and order Annexure P-1 so far as it relates mentioning of house No.240/1 is quashed. Order Annexure P-1 shall be treated to be house allotted against House No.240/3. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that according to his instruction one house bearing No.332 is lying vacant in the same area, therefore, respondents be directed to allot the said house in favour of petitioner. 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case, respondent No.1 is directed to verify the facts and if house No.332 is vacant and can be allotted to petitioner according to policy formulated by them, be allotted to petitioner and if for any reason, the said house could not be allotted to petitioner, then respondent No.1 is directed to identify any other house 6 lying vacant in the area and to complete allotment proceedings within further period of four months from the date of receipt of order. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram