1 / 3 2025:CGHC:29871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3349 of 2025 Ram Bai Dewangan D/o Bhaolaram Dewangan Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No.-29, Pragati Nagar, Jailpara, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Corporation, Raigarh Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Building Officer Municipal Corporation, Raigarh District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL For Respondents No.3 to 5 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 02/07/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the order dated 09/06/2025 passed by Respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the construction over the land in question ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.07.09 11:42:19 +0530 2 / 3 for the reason that the colony in which the petitioner is residing has been notified as slum area as per the National Slum Survey Area List 2002-2003. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at Ward No.29, Pragati Nagar, Jailpara, Raigarh 400 families are residing and out of 400 families, the respondent No.3 has given the notice to only 295 families for demolition of their houses. He would next contend that the Government has issued patta for 10 years in favour of the sister of the petitioner and after her death the petitioner is single being a divorcee is residing in the same house which was constructed and even after the death of the father of the petitioner, she is regularly paying the Property Tax, Water Tax and Consolidated Tax vide Annexure P/3, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 09/06/2025 may be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents No.3 to 5 contended that the petitioner has already been rehabilitated in Maa Vihar Part -8 (G+3) Block Number E, House No.3 on lease for a period of 30 years on 15/06/2025 and he has placed on record the allotment order in favour of the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 5. Perused the document /allotment letter dated 15/06/2025 produced by learned counsel for Respondents No.3 to 5, which is taken on 3 / 3 record. From perusal of the same it is apparent that the petitioner has been rehabilitated. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this case. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu