1 2026:CGHC:19974 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1417 of 2021 Abhinit Upadhyay S/o Shri R.B. Upadhyay, Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 218, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Joint Director, Town And Country Planning, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Officer-In-Charge, Samta Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, S/o Shri Doongarmal Agrawal, Owner Of Plot C- 1, R/o Samta Colony, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri Anand Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, Owner Of Plot C- 2, R/o B-1, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Sardar Harbhajan Singh Saluja (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 11-08-2025 7.1 - Preetpal Singh Saluja S/o Late Shri Sardar Harbhajan Singh Saluja Aged About 55 Years R/o C-3, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7.2 - Trilok Singh Saluja S/o Late Shri Sardar Harbhajan Singh Saluja Aged About 51 Years R/o C-3, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7.3 - Deelip Singh Saluja S/o Late Shri Sardar Harbhajan Singh Saluja Aged About 48 Years R/o C-3, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 8 - Shri Kamal Kishor Gupta, S/o Shri Nandkishor Gupta, Owner Of Plot C-4, R/o Ganjpara Station Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 9 - Smt. Sushila Bai Jain (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 11- 08-2025 2 9.1 - Pukhraj Jain S/o Late Shri Tarachand Jain Aged About 56 Years R/o C-5 Sushila Sadan Samta Colony Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 9.2 - Goutam Chand Jain S/o Late Shri Tarachand Jain Aged About 54 Years R/o C- 5 Sushila Sadan Samta Colony Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - Smt. Seeta Devi Agrawal (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 11-08-2025 10.1 - Anand Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o B-1, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 10.2 - Ritesh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o B-1, Samta Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 11 - Shri Naval Kishor Agrawal, S/o Late Bheemsen Agrawal, Owner Of Plot B-2, R/o Shri Krishna Steels, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 12 - Smt. Bhagwati Devi Preetwani, W/o Late Arjun Kumar Preetwani, Owner Of Plot B-3, R/o B-3 Samta Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh 13 - Lalchand Preetwani, S/o Late Nemamal Preetwani, Owner Of Plot B-4, R/o Jawahar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken for CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate. For Res. No. 1 & 2 For Res. No. 3 For Res. No. 5,6,8,10,11,12 & 13 : : : Mr. Ujjwal Choubey, Panel Lawyer Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. Mr. Aniket Verma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- (i). This Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondents to revert the modified plant / layout to the original layout and demolish the houses that have been constructed by carving out the area earmarked for the park / playing field. 3 (ii) May kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may be deemed fit and proper, 3. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are the petitioner, who is resident of Samta Colony, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, has stated in his pleading that on 21.12.1981, Raipur Development Authority (RDA) had prepared a Zonal / development plan of Samta Colony, which had certain area earmarked for Park and Playing field. That original lay out plan was illegally modified by respondent authorities and 9 residential accommodation plots were carved out of the area earmarked for park and playing field on 06.12.1982, whereas they have no right or authority to change lay out plan. But by doing so, respondent authorities deprived the petitioner and other residents of Samta Colony from fresh air as well as recreation, which also come under right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner has filed instant petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there can be no delay in cases involving the violation of fundamental rights and in the instant case, there is no power or authority with the Joint Director to amend the approved master plan of Samta Colony, Raipur, which has been approved by the State Government and the Director, Town & Country Planning and, therefore, this petition may be admitted for hearing. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the State / respondents No. 1 & 2 would submit that original lay out plan of Samta Colony, Raipur was approved on 21.12.1981, which was subsequently modified / amended on 06.12.1982, but the said modification has been challenged by petitioner after an inordinate delay of 38 years, hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone. He further submits that after carving out plots, various private respondents have constructed their house after taking due permission from the Municipal Corporation, Raipur and residing there alongwith his family members since long, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and other respondents have extended their support to the submission made by counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2/ State. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. According to the facts stated by the petitioner himself, the said layout of Samta Colony was originally prepared/approved in the year 1981 and was subsequently amended in the year 1982. The present petition was filed by the petitioner on 23.02.2021, wherein he has stated his age to be 35 years meaning thereby that when the said layout was amended in the year 1982, the petitioner was not even born. Thus, the petitioner challenged alleged modification in the lay-out plan after lapse of 38 years. It is further observed that after carving out alleged 9 residential accommodation plots, the persons, who have allotted plots, have constructed house and resident there alongwith their families. 9. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India v. Tarsem Singh 1 while considering the delay / latches in approaching appropriate forum by aggrieved person / party seeking relief, has observed as under :- “To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in 1 (2008) 8 SCC 648 5 respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied………... 10. In the case of Chairman, State Bank of India v M J James 2 , their lordships of the Supreme Court has held as under :- "36. What is a reasonable time is not to be put in a straitjacket formula or judicially codified in the form of days, etc. as it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. A right not exercised for a long time is non- existent. Doctrine of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are applied to non-suit the litigants who approach the court/appellate authorities belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing action after unreasonable delay. In the present case, challenge to the order of dismissal from service by way of appeal was after four years and five months, which is certainly highly belated and beyond justifiable time. Without satisfactory explanation justifying the delay, it is difficult to hold that the appeal was preferred within a reasonable time……………………..” 11. In Ram Chand v. Union of India 3 , and State of U.P. v. Manohar 4 , their Lordships has observed that if the statutory authority has not performed its duty within a reasonable time, it cannot justify the same by taking the plea that the 2 (2022) 2 SCC 301 3 (1994) 1 SCC 44 4 (2002) 2 SCC 126 6 person who has been deprived of his rights has not approached the appropriate forum for relief. If a statutory authority does not pass any orders and thereby fails to comply with the statutory mandate within reasonable time, they normally should not be permitted to take the defence of laches and delay. If at all, in such cases, the delay furnishes a cause of action, which in some cases as elucidated in Union of India v. Tarsent Singh 5 may be continuing cause of action. “The State being a virtuous litigant should meet the genuine claims and not deny them for want of action on their part. However, this general principle would not apply when, on consideration of the facts, the court concludes that the respondent had abandoned his rights, which may be either express or implied from his conduct. Abandonment implies intentional act to acknowledge,…..” 12. In light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, and taking into account the fact that this petition has been filed 38 years after the 'cause of action' arose and further considering that, subsequent to the alleged carving out of 9 residential plots, the allottees of those plots have constructed houses thereon and are residing there with their families, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. No order as to cost (s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge 5 (2008) 8 SCC 648 AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.05.05 12:55:31 +0530