[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Ruhi Agrawal vs Raipur Development Authority on 17 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12630
Digitally
signed by
RUKHSAR
RUKHSAR BANO
BANO Date:
NAFR
2026.03.18
10:53:53
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1134 of 2026
1 - Smt. Ruhi Agrawal W/o Shri Shyam Kishor Agrawal Aged About 45 Years R/o
Sector- 1, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Smt. Kamla Agrawal W/o Shri N.C. Agrawal Aged About 73 Years R/o Golden
Glory, Shri Ram Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioners
versus
1 - Raipur Development Authority, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, 2nd Floor,
Bhakt Matakarma Vyavasaik Parisar, New Rajendra Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chief Executive Officer Raipur Development Authority, 2nd Floor, Bhakt
Matakarma Vyavasaik Parisar, New Rajendra, Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Revenue Officer (Tehsildar) Raipur Development Authority, Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Sub-Registrar Office At Collectorate, Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Sandeep Agrawal S/o Shri Mukund Agrawal Aged About 57 Years R/o House No.
27/437, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause title, as taken from CIS system)
For Petitioners : Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For State / Respondent No.4 : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Adv. General.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
17/03/2026
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been preferred by petitioners under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-
"10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of
mandamus do issue calling the relevant records from
the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioner
for its kind perusal.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of
appropriate writ do issue direction respondent state
authority to not to exchange the plot of the petitioner
i.e. E-01 area 251.35 sq. mt. situated at Sector-1,
Kaushaliya Mata Vihar (Kamal Vihar), Raipur and
returned the amount Rs. 37,725/- with interest.
10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of
appropriate writ do issue direction to the respondent
state authority that if petitioner's plot requires to
exchange then exchange deed must be executed for
plot no. D-73 area 252.96 sq. mt. situated at Sector-1,
Kaushaliya Mata Vihar (Kamal Vihar), Raipur, in favour
of petitioner, as the petitioner had already paid the
amount Rs.37,725/-for difference of area 1.61 sq.mt.
10.4 Cost of the proceedings.
10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be
deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of
case."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
purchased Plot No. E-01, admeasuring 251.35 square meter, Sector-1,
situated on part of Khasra No.585 at Village Tikrapara, P.H. No.114/70,
R.I. Circle Raipur-1, Tehsil and District Raipur, vide registered sale
deed dated 13.08.2015 from respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 had
obtained the aforesaid plot in exchange from Raipur Development
Authority, Raipur (for brevity, "RDA, Raipur") under the Definitive
Agreement Scheme. Subsequently, the said land was recorded in the
name of the petitioners in all government records and was also
declared freehold in their favour. However, all of sudden, respondent
No.3 issued Memo dated 04.07.2025 (Annexure -P/6) to the petitioners
stating therein that number of their land, E-01, has been changed to D-
73, which contains a larger area than Plot No.E-01, Therefore, the
petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.37,725/- as
"प्रब्याजी राशि" in the account of RDA, Raipur, which has already been
deposited by the petitioners. Despite that, instead of executing the
exchange deed in favour of the petitioners, respondent- RDA executed
the exchange deed in favour of respondent No.5. He further submits
that the petitioners are ready to file a representation before respondent
No.2 for redressal for their grievance. Hence, learned counsel prays
that, at this stage, the present petition may be disposed of with a
direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation filed by the
petitioners expeditiously.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that he
has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioners.
5. Having considered the limited prayer made by learned counsel for
petitioners, the present petition is disposed of at this stage by granting
liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before respondent No.2
for redressal of their grievance within a period of 15 days from today. It
is further directed that, in the eventuality of filing such representation by
the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall consider and decide the same, in
accordance with law, within a further period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of representation along with a copy of this order.
6. With aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
7. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No
order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Rukhsar
