1 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 181 of 2015 1 - Smt. Renu Chitlangia And Ors. W/o Mukesh Chitlangia Aged About 48 Years R/o Ganj Line Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mukesh Chitlangia S/o Shankar Lal Chitlangia Aged About 52 Years R/o Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And Dist. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Smt. Anita Chitlangia W/o Rajesh Chitlangia Aged About 44 Years R/o Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And Dist. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajesh Chitlangia S/o Shankar Lal Chitlangia Aged About 50 Years R/o Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And Dist. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate of Town And Country Planning Chhattisgarh Raipur, Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Director Town And Country Plannning Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Assistant Director Town And Country Plannning Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None even in three rounds. For State : Mr. T. S. Sahu, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17/10/2025 1. There is no representation on behalf of petitioners in three rounds. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10(i). That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the notice dated 30/10/2014 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.1. ii). That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the objection raised by the petitioners in its true perspective and to declare the use of the aforesaid lands of the petitioners for residential purpose. Iii). Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners.” 3. The petitioners have pleaded that they are residents of Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon. They have land in village Paneka, Tehsil & District Rajnandgaon. It is further pleaded that adjacent to their land, Gram Panchayat has declared the land as residential area and divided 100 plots. It is further stated that the objections were raised by petitioners but the State Government vide notification dated 30.10.2014/01.11.2014 by exercising power under Section 19 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short, the Act, 1973), accorded approval to the Rajnandgaon Development Plan 2031, submitted by the Director, Town & Country Planing, Raipur. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that as per Section 19 (5) of the Act, 1973, the ‘Rajnandgaon Development Plan, 2001’ was enforced according to the notification promulgated in the official Gazette dated 3 08.12.1993. He would further submit that according to the same provision, ‘Rajnandgaon Development Plan, 2031’, is currently enforced by issuance of notification dated 30.10.2014/01.11.2014. He would also submit that land in dispute is reserved for agriculture and it has been done according to the provisions of the Act, 1973. 5. Heard learned State counsel at length and perused the documents placed on file. 6. The petitioners have annexed the gazette notification (Annexure P/1), dated 30.10.2014/01.11.2014, whereby the State Government exercising power conferred under Section 19 (1) of the Act, 1973 accorded approval to the ‘Rajnandgaon Development Plan, 2031’. The petitioners have placed revenue records and copies of sale deeds, but they have not annexed copy of the objections raised before the respondent No.2. 7. In the entire petition, the petitioners have not pleaded as to when objections were raised, the petitioners also failed to establish the fact that the notification issued by the State Government whereby approval has been granted to the ‘Rajnandgaon Development Plan, 2031’, would affect their rights; the State has filed document(s) to substantiate that the Committee was constituted according the provisions of Section 17 (A)(1) of the Act, 1973, and the objections were invited and decided by the Committee and thereafter final decision was taken. 8. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the State Government vide Annexure P/1. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim