News Citation : 2026 LN (CGSCDRC) 7
February 05, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed an appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh Grih Nirman Mandal and set aside an order of the District Consumer Commission that had granted relief to a homebuyer in a dispute over allotment of additional land.
In its order pronounced on February 4, 2026, in Appeal No. SC/22/FA/413/2025, the State Commission overturned the June 23, 2025 decision of the District Commission in Rajnandgaon, which had partly allowed the complaint filed by Harjeet Singh against the housing board.
The dispute arose after Harjeet Singh purchased House No. LIG-25 in Chikhli Colony through a registered sale deed dated April 11, 2023. After acquiring the property, he applied on July 4, 2023 for allotment of 485.27 square feet of adjacent land located behind the house. The Executive Engineer of the housing board assessed the estimated value of the additional land at ₹4,26,000 and directed Singh to deposit 10 percent of the amount as a registration fee.
Singh deposited ₹42,600 on January 29, 2024 through bank challan and informed the authorities. Subsequently, a local committee raised objections, stating that the land in question was situated along a drainage line and formed part of a mandatory buffer zone. A fresh demarcation was conducted in the presence of revenue officials and colony residents.
The demarcation report concluded that under the Rajnandgaon Development Plan 2031 and the Chhattisgarh Land Development Rules, a nine-metre buffer from the drain had to be maintained. As the disputed 485.27 square feet fell within this restricted zone, it could not legally be allotted.
Based on this finding, the housing board cancelled the proposed allotment and attempted to refund the ₹42,600 through cheque on August 13, 2024. Singh declined to accept the refund and instead approached the District Consumer Commission alleging deficiency in service.
The District Commission had directed the housing board to adjust the registration amount toward the land price, execute a sale deed within 30 days, and pay compensation of ₹20,000 for mental agony along with ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
Challenging this order, the housing board argued that the land was part of a government buffer zone and could not be transferred under law. It further contended that the ₹42,600 was only a provisional registration deposit and did not confer any vested right to allotment.
After examining the documents, demarcation report, and correspondence on record, the State Commission held that the housing board had followed due governmental procedure before cancelling the allotment. It observed that once the land was found to fall within a legally mandated buffer zone, its allotment would have been contrary to planning norms.
The Commission noted that the board had already attempted to refund the deposited amount and that Singh was legally entitled only to recover that amount. It found no deficiency in service on the part of the housing board and ruled that the District Commission had passed an erroneous order.
Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the District Commission’s order dated June 23, 2025 in Complaint Case No. DC/388/CC/162/2024, and dismissed the consumer complaint.
Case Reference : Appeal No. SC/22/FA/413/2025, C.G. Grih Nirman Mandal v. Harjeet Singh
