1 2025:CGHC:50548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 5231 of 2025 1 - Vivek Agrawal S/o Late Omprakash Agrawal Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 3, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Sudip Niyogi S/o Late S.K. Niyogi Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 9, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - Naveen Sharma S/o Shri Kasturilal Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o House No. 15, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar- Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Town And Country Planning, Indiravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur (C.G.) Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Raipur (C.G.) Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Raipur Municipal Corporation Through Commissioner, Near Mahila Thana, Chottapara, Janta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Zone 3 Commissioner Raipur Municipal Corporation, Near Water Tank, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Raipur Development Authority Through Secretary, 2nd Floor Bhaktmata Karma Vyavsayik, Parisar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 7 - M/s Echt Integrated Recreation Facility Pvt. Ltd Address- Registered Office At 603, Venus Amadeus, Opposite Gold Coln, Near Jodhpur Cross Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat Address- C/o Shri Rajiv VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.10.10 17:19:55 +0530 2 Sanger, Director, Office Spree Food Lab, Telibandha Lake, Marine Drive, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Zakir Anam Shah, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA For Respondents No.4 to 6 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/10/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondent authorities to decide the representations/complaint letters of the petitioners which was submitted before the authority and the same may be decided by them as per the provision of law, in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pass an appropriate order on the basis of representation submitted before them. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that according to the petitioners, that the respondent authorities, i.e., the Raipur 3 Development Authority formed and developed a residential colony Jalvihar under Town and Country Planning, Bhopal in 1976 and passed the layout plan/map of the residential colony of Jalvihar before the undivided state of Chhattisgarh in year 1976 in the layout map of the residential colony the park/garden is located under the petitioners residential colony of Jalvihar. The respondent authorities issued letter dated on 15.03.1991 that Raipur Development Authority handed over some of the residential colonies of Raipur city including the Jalvihar Colony to the Raipur Municipal Corporation for maintenance work related to Water supply. Drainage, Road, Electricity and Park etc. The Raipur Municipal Corporation was performing the work of maintenance of the petitioners residential colony of Jalvihar. The respondent authorities In 2019 signed an Operational and Maintenance Agreement on 08.03.2019 between the Raipur Municipal Corporation and respondent no. 7 i.e M/s ECHT Integrated Recreation Facility Pvt. Ltd., based in Ahmedabad. This agreement, spanning 15 years, pertained to a designated area of 2.91 acres, which included the Telibandha Lake and a jogging track of 0.73 acres surrounding the lake. However, it has been noted that the park and garden within the residential colony of petitioners were acquired unlawfully under the terms of the agreement. The Operational and Maintenance agreement dated on 08.03.2019 designates the park and garden of the petitioners colony as ZONE-A and ZONE-B areas. However, Respondent No. 7 has commenced construction work in the garden area of the petitioners 4 colony, which was unlawfully acquired, violating both the Fundamental Right and the Municipal Corporation Act of 1956. Furthermore, the park within the residential colony of petitioners is being utilized for restaurant and entertainment purposes and also cut down the trees and plants and constructed activities like zipline, outdoor activities and other activities over the lake also and changed the profile of the garden with other illegal commercial activities, wereas some of the other residents of the colony have changed the profile of there residential houses and started cafes, gym, corporate commercial offices etc. These actions constitute a clear infringement of the Fundamental Rights and other rights of the petitioners. The respondent authorities passed the Map showing the development area of the Telibandha Lake and without any approval by the any concern authority passed the map which also shows the ill-legally acquire the Park/Garden of the petitioners Colony area under it. and marked as ZONE-A & ZONE-B. The petitioners have raised the issue before the concern respondent authority time to time related the problems which they are facing due to the in-actions done by the respondents authority and other respondent by filing the complaint letter to the concern authorities several times but the complainant was not heard by the authorities till today. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 6 contended that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition and he further 5 contended that the petition drafted by the petitioners and relief sought of the petitioners are a type of PIL, therefore, this petition is not maintainable under the eye of law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, it is manifest that the petitioners filed the present writ petition in their personal capacity whereas the matter involves larger public interest and as such if the petitioners wish to challenge the same, they may file a Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) before the appropriate forum. 7. It is the trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject-matter and the word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority. 8. It is also the settled law that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable 6 rules. [See: Vinoy Kumar v State of U.P. and Others, (2001) 4 SCC 734]. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of as not maintainable however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file duly constituted petition before the appropriate forum, if so advised. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present petition stands disposed of. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant