1 2026:CGHC:22155-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 422 of 2026 1 - Ajay Verma S/o G.S. Verma Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. C- 7, R.D.A. Colony Tikrapara Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Rekha Vyas W/o Alok Vyas Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. A-3, R.D.A. Colony Tikrapara Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Abdul Nasim S/o Abdul Aziz Aged About 66 Years R/o House No. D- 3, R.D.A. Colony Tikrapara Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Sulochna Daga W/o Pramod Daga Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. A-5, R.D.A. Colony Tikrapara Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Sulekha Chaudhary W/o C.K. Chaudhary Aged About 65 Years R/o House No. A-5, R.D.A. Colony Tikrapara Raipur, Distt Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Department of Town And Country Planning, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Raipur Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma Parisar, Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Additional Chief Executive Officer Raipur Development Authority, 2nd Floor, Bhakt Mata Karma Parisar, Commercial Complex New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.05.13 10:20:04 +0530 2 6 - Municipal Corporation Raipur Through Its Commissioner, Azad Chowk Road, Near Mahila Thana, Chhotapara, Janta Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3/State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents No.4 to 6 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 as well as Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 6 on I.A. No.02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 84 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.02), the same is allowed. Delay of 84 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- 3 “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to set aside judgment dated 26/11/25 and eviction notice dated 07.07.2025. 10.3 the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to allow all reliefs of the petition WPC no 4477/25 in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other relief that is deemed to fit for the case.” 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4477/2025 (Ajay Verma and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed. 5. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, are that the appellants/writ petitioners are the lawful owners/leaseholders of residential flats situated at RDA Colony (96 Tenement), Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.). The writ petition was instituted assailing the impugned eviction notices (Annexure P-1) issued by the Raipur Development Authority (RDA), whereby the appellants/writ petitioners were directed to vacate their respective flats on the ground of proposed demolition and reconstruction of 4 the building. It was contended that despite being owners and persons in settled possession of the flats, the appellants/writ petitioners were neither afforded any opportunity of hearing nor served with any prior notice disclosing the grounds for such eviction, thereby violating the principles of natural justice as well as their fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 6. It was further pleaded before the learned Single Judge that the respondent authorities had failed to make any alternative arrangement for accommodation or rehabilitation of the appellants/writ petitioners and their family members, rendering the proposed eviction abrupt, arbitrary and violative of their ownership/leasehold rights. The appellants/writ petitioners, therefore, sought intervention of the Court for protection of their fundamental and constitutional rights to livelihood and shelter, for quashing of the impugned eviction notices, and for a direction that any action of eviction be undertaken only after following due process of law, affording adequate opportunity of hearing, and ensuring proper resettlement/rehabilitation in consonance with the constitutional obligations of the State as a welfare entity. 7. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the appellants/writ petitioners have filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) No.4477/2025, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.11.2025. 5 8. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No.4477/2025, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/writ petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submits that the impugned eviction notices are wholly illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and, therefore, liable to be set aside/quashed. It is contended that the respondent authorities have no power to demolish the flats of the appellants/writ petitioners, particularly when the flats in occupation of the appellants/writ petitioners are in good and habitable condition. It is further submitted that no inspection report of any competent engineer or authority indicating that the flats are in a dilapidated or dangerous condition has been placed on record by the respondents. He further submits that even in paragraph 5 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it has been noticed that the maintenance work of the colony had been handed over to respondent No.6, however, no enquiry report or technical assessment regarding the condition of the building has been prepared by respondent No.6, though the same was absolutely necessary before directing demolition of the structure. 10. It is argued that had the flats actually been in a dilapidated condition, the Municipal Corporation would have initiated proceedings and issued notice under Section 309 of the Municipal Corporation Act, however, no such notice has ever been issued in 6 the present case, which itself demonstrates that the building is not unsafe for occupation. He further submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider Clause/Paragraph 10 of the lease deed (Annexure P/1 to the writ petition), wherein it has been specifically stipulated that in the event of any dispute arising between the parties, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the dispute ought to have first been referred to an Arbitrator in terms of the lease agreement. 11. It is next contended that the learned Single Judge did not afford sufficient opportunity to the appellants/writ petitioners to file rejoinder, and despite the respondents allegedly not filing proper reply to the writ petition, the matter came to be decided without granting adequate opportunity to the appellants/writ petitioners. He also submits that the learned Single Judge erroneously relied upon the joint application submitted by the RDA Colony Residents Welfare Association alleging that the colony was in a dilapidated condition, despite the absence of any technical or engineering report substantiating such allegation. According to learned counsel, respondent Nos.4 and 5, in connivance with the office bearers of the RDA Colony Residents Welfare Association, are seeking demolition of the existing three-storeyed structure with an intention to raise a five-storeyed building and earn huge profits by selling the newly constructed flats at higher rates. It is further submitted that the appellants/writ petitioners are senior citizens and are not financially capable of purchasing or paying for another 7 flat, and therefore, the impugned action would cause grave hardship and irreparable injury to them. 12. Learned counsel further contends that the impugned eviction notices have been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as neither any show-cause notice was issued to the appellants/writ petitioners nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded before directing them to vacate their flats. It is also argued that the appellants/writ petitioners are lawful owners and leaseholders of the flats in question and have been regularly renewing their leases by payment of requisite stamp duty and by complying with all necessary formalities. Therefore, eviction without following due process of law amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and infringes their legal and contractual rights. He also submits that the sale deed and lease deed executed between the appellants/writ petitioners and the Raipur Development Authority confer enforceable legal rights upon the appellants/writ petitioners, and any attempt to evict them during subsistence of such leasehold and ownership rights, without compensation or lawful procedure, amounts to breach of contractual obligations as well as abuse of statutory powers. 13. It is further contended that demolition of the structure could not have been undertaken unless the lease itself was first revoked in accordance with law, however, no statutory procedure in that regard has been followed by the authorities. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the impugned notices have been issued by 8 the Raipur Development Authority without jurisdiction and without authority of law, and that the appellants/writ petitioners, being owners and leaseholders residing in the premises for several decades, cannot be displaced in such arbitrary and illegal manner. As such, the impugned order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the impugned eviction notices and submitted that the same have been issued in accordance with law in larger public interest keeping in view the condition of the building and the proposed redevelopment/reconstruction project. It is submitted that no interference is warranted in the present writ appeal. 15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6, while adopting the submissions advanced on behalf of the State/respondent Nos.1 to 3, further submits that the colony in question is in dilapidated condition and the decision for demolition and reconstruction has been taken for the safety and welfare of the residents. It is submitted that the appellants/writ petitioners cannot obstruct the redevelopment project and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 16. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order 9 dated 26.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.4477/2025. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners and those of the learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 as well as respondents No.4 to 6 have received our thoughtful consideration. 17. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “7. From perusal of Annexure R-4/1, it is revealed that the maintenance and civic upkeep of the entire colony was formally handed over by the Raipur Development Authority (respondent no. 4 and 5) to Municipal Corporation Raipur (respondent no. 6) in the year 1991. Annexure R-4/2 shows that the residents and the association has made several representations to the concerned authorities stating that all the four buildings of the colony had become extremely dilapidated, posing serious risk to life and property of the occupants. Annexure R-4/3 reveals that on the representations of the residents for demolition and reconstruction of new flats in place of old unsafe structures, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors of the Raipur Development Authority. Thereafter, in the 4th meeting of the Board of Directors held on 09.10.2023, vide Meeting No. 04/2023 under Agenda Item No. 3, the Board empowered 10 the CEO to take all necessary steps in accordance with law for demolition and redevelopment, which is evident from Annexure R-4/4. On 19.06.2024 the majority of residents executed written undertakings/consent letters wherein they have categorically stated that the residents had no objection to demolition and reconstruction fo the flats. 8. It is also pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid four buildings were confirmed to be structurally unsafe and jar-jar (rickety) after the technical inspection, therefore, the Collector recommended for grant of sanction to the State Government, who after being satisfied, granted permission vide order No. GENS/292/2025-GAD-5 dated 13.02.2025 to the respondent no. 4 and 5, which is evident from perusal of Annexure R-4/7. 9. A detailed joint application was made by the registered “RDA Colony Residents Welfare Association” addressed to the Chief Executive Officer and the Chairman of RDA representing that all the four buildings of the colony had become extremely dilapidated, posing serious risk to life and property of the occupants. In this joint application, a concrete proposal was placed that in place of the 96 existing flats, 196 new flats could be constructed and the cost of construction could be met by the Authority by selling 100 additional flats to outsiders. This application 11 and proposal was signed by all the residents, including the present petitioner Ajay Verma and his wife Smt. Titiksha Verma, who are lessees of flats bearing numbers C-7 and C- 15 respectively. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have followed all the statutory procedures before dismantling the structures. The plea of violation of natural justice is wholly untenable. 11. The residents including the petitioners have consented for demolition and redevelopment through their representations. Meetings were held, consents were taken, inspections were held which revealed the condition of the building to be rickety. Thereafter, the Raipur Development Authority owing to their unsafe condition serves the notices to the occupants for vacating the premises. The action of the Authority is supported by technical material, Board approval and Government sanction. 12. It is aimed solely at protecting life and property and undertaking redevelopment in public interest. The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution casts a duty on the authorities to act when buildings become unsafe. The petitioners’ rights are always subject to the overriding considerations of 12 safety and welfare of the community. The petitioners cannot insist on continuing to occupy dangerous structures at the cost of their own safety and of others. 13. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and documentary record, the present petition is bereft of merit and is hereby dismissed.” 18. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the respondent authorities had undertaken the process of demolition and redevelopment of the RDA Colony (96 Tenement), Tikrapara, Raipur only after following the requisite statutory procedure and upon due consideration of the condition of the structures in question. The material available on record clearly demonstrates that repeated representations were submitted by the residents and the registered Residents Welfare Association expressing serious concern regarding the deteriorated and unsafe condition of the buildings and requesting reconstruction in larger public interest. It further appears that the issue was placed before the competent authority, namely the Board of Directors of the Raipur Development Authority, which in its meeting dated 09.10.2023 resolved to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to undertake necessary steps for demolition and redevelopment in accordance with law. 19. Records further reveal that technical inspection of the buildings was carried out and the structures were found to be unsafe and in dilapidated condition. Thereafter, recommendation was made by 13 the Collector and approval/sanction was granted by the State Government vide order dated 13.02.2025. Thus, the action initiated by the respondent authorities cannot be said to be unilateral, arbitrary or without jurisdiction. Rather, the same appears to have been taken after obtaining technical inputs, administrative approval and governmental sanction keeping in view the safety of the occupants and larger public interest. 20. This Court also finds substance in the observation recorded by the learned Single Judge that majority of the residents, including the present appellants/writ petitioners, had earlier participated in the process and consented for demolition and redevelopment of the colony. The material placed on record, particularly the joint application and consent letters executed by the residents, clearly indicate that the redevelopment proposal was initiated considering the unsafe condition of the structures and the necessity of reconstruction. Once the appellants/writ petitioners themselves were parties to the representations seeking redevelopment, they cannot now be permitted to approbate and reprobate by challenging the very same process at a subsequent stage. 21. So far as the contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, this Court is unable to accept the same. The record reflects that meetings were held, representations were submitted by residents, consent letters were obtained and the entire redevelopment proposal was processed at various 14 administrative levels. The impugned action, therefore, cannot be said to have been taken in complete absence of notice or participation of the residents. Merely because separate individual adjudicatory proceedings were not conducted in the manner sought by the appellants/writ petitioners would not ipso facto vitiate the entire action, particularly when the redevelopment exercise pertains to collective safety and welfare of all occupants of the colony. 22. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners that no proceedings under Section 309 of the Municipal Corporation Act were initiated also does not persuade this Court to interfere in the matter. Non-initiation of proceedings under a particular statutory provision would not invalidate the action otherwise taken by the competent authorities pursuant to technical inspection, governmental approval and administrative sanction. Similarly, the plea regarding existence of arbitration clause in the lease deed is misconceived in the facts of the present case, as the dispute involved herein pertains to exercise of statutory and public law powers concerning redevelopment and public safety, which cannot be restricted solely to a private arbitral mechanism. 23. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the right claimed by the appellants/writ petitioners on the basis of leasehold or ownership rights cannot override considerations of public safety 15 and welfare. The rights flowing from lease deeds and occupation of the premises are always subject to lawful regulatory action undertaken by the competent authorities in larger public interest. When the authorities, on the basis of technical assessment and administrative satisfaction, have found the structures to be unsafe and have undertaken redevelopment for protection of life and property, interference by this Court in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction would not be warranted unless manifest arbitrariness, mala fide or patent illegality is established. 24. The allegations of conspiracy and mala fide raised against respondent Nos.4 to 6 are bald allegations unsupported by any cogent material on record. Except making generalized assertions that the respondents intend to construct additional floors and derive financial benefit, no substantive material has been placed before this Court to establish mala fide exercise of power or colourable exercise of jurisdiction. Mere apprehension or suspicion cannot form basis for interference with an administrative decision taken in public interest. 25. We are also in agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the redevelopment project is aimed at ensuring safety of residents and reconstruction of old and unsafe structures. The right to shelter guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to compel authorities to permit continued occupation of buildings found to be 16 structurally unsafe. Rather, the constitutional obligation of the State equally requires it to take timely measures to prevent possible danger to human life and property. 26. Having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the factual matrix and documentary material available on record and has committed no illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court in the present writ appeal. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on proper appreciation of facts and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 27. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ appeal, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu