1 2025:CGHC:42604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4499 of 2025 1 - Titiksha Verma W/o Ajay Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Flat No C-7, R.D.A. Colony Tikrapara Raipur, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma Parisar, Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Additional Chief Executive Officer Raipur Development Authority, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma Parisar, Commercial Complex New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Azad Chowk Road, Near Mahila Thana, Chhotapara, Janta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. For Respondent-Corporation : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the following relief(s):- (i)That this Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.08.29 10:52:14 +0530 2 (ii) That this Court may kindly be pleased to set aside eviction notice dated 07.07.2025 (iii)Any other writs and directions including cost of the proceedings that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner/lease holder of residential flats C-7 at RDA Colony, (96 Tenament), Tikrapara Raipur, (C.G.). the petitioner purchased above flat through registered sell deed. the said flat/colony was constructed by the Raipur Development Authority under the Tikrapara scheme. petitioner is owner of the said residential flat and upon expiry of the said lease it was renewed on time to time. Renewal of the lease was done by paying the requisite stamp duty and complying with all necessary formalities as such the petitioner has also completed renewal documents. the RDA has issued impugned eviction notice dated 07.05.2025 to the petitioner and has directed her to vacate their residential premises. As per the eviction notice, the RDA colony (96 Tenament) Residents welfare Association submitted a proposal to the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) seeking demolition of the existing tenaments and construction of new ones upon which RDA has presented a proposal before collector, Raipur regarding demolition and reconstruction of RDA Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.), which has been approved by the state government, vide order no. GENS/292/2025-GAD-5, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, dated 13.02.2025 wherein permission has been granted to RDA for demolition of the aforesaid premises. it is pertinent to mention here 3 that the petitioner was never aware about the said proposal submitted by RDA colony Residents Welfare Association, to the Raipur Development Authority regarding the demolition of the existing tenaments and the construction of new ones. However, at no stage was the petitioner consulted or her consent was sought and she has not ever given her consent to such a proposal. it is further submitted that, the impugned eviction notices has been issued without granting any opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner, no show cause notice or prior intimation was ever served upon the petitioner before directing to vacate her flat. The action of the RDA is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner purchased the flat from hard earned money and the action of the RDA is arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease/sale deed. The petitioner, being lawful owners and leaseholders who have regularly renewed her lease upon due payment of stamp duty and charges, is entitled to the protection of the leasehold rights. Evicting the petitioners without adhering to the any law is abuse of the administrative power. 3. Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner has not made necessary party and also the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 13.02.2025. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 4 13.02.2025 wherein permission has been granted to RDA for demolition of the aforesaid premises and also the petitioner has not made necessary party to the case, therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate petition, if he so desires. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti