Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30509 (CHH)

RAMA VALLEY RESIDENTIAL WELFARE SOCIETY, v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/2001/2024 · 2026-07-30

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010109712024 2026:CGHC:33232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2001 of 2024 1 - Rama Valley Residential Welfare Society, Having Its Registration No. 122202255938 Bodri Raipur Road Bilaspur Through Its Secretary, P.V.R. Naidu S/o P.M. Naidu, Aged About 64 Years, Residence Of R-7/5 Rama Valley Bodri, Raipur Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Town And Country Planning, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Joint Director Town And Country Investment, Mungeli Naka Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - M/s R.P. Builders And Developers Through Partner Prakash Gwalani S/o Late Shri Banshilal Gwalani, Aged About 64 Years, Residence Of Plot No. 119, 120, 121, 122 Rama Valley Bodri, Raipur Road Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.03 10:37:00 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. For Caveator : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate. For Intervener : Mr. Rahul Singh Thakur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition has been redressed and, therefore, the present petition has become infructuous. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents have no objection to the said prayer. 4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and there being no objection from the respective respondents, the instant petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju