Usha Bai Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner For the State : Ms. Praveen Das, Dy. AG. For the Municipal Corporation : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Shikhar Agnihotri, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board

04.09.2025

With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally.

This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following direction: “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly allow the petition and quash the impugned notice dated 11.06.2025 and direct 2 the respondent authorities to not demolish the construction made upon the land of the petitioner and to not take any coercive steps against the petitioner.

10.2. Any other relief which deemed fit and proper may also be issued looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the interest of the petitioner.”

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner in this writ petition are that, by way of agreement dated 04.03.2021 (Annexure P-3), petitioner has purchased the land along with debris (मलबा(cid:4)) situated at village -Dadarkhurd, Diprapara, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.), Ward no.30, admeasuring area 4.5 Dismil, in which, house is constructed upon 1200 sqft of said land, petitioner is in possession since the year 2021 and also paying the tax to the Municipal Corporation. However, vide impugned notice dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), respondent- authority/Municipal Corporation is going to demolish the house constructed on the land of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a rainy season, therefore, some time may be given to the petitioner to vacate the premises and till then no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner. In support of his prayer, he relied upon jktLo iqLrd ifji= ds [k.M pkj&dzekad 2 : 82- o” kkZ dky esa gVkuk % e-iz- ‘kklu Hkw&ifjeki ,oa cankscLr foHkkx dzekad 22&27&8&76] Hkksiky fnukad 1&9&76 fo- utwy Hkwfe ij vfrdze.kksa dks o” kkZdky esa gVk;s tkus ckcr~& ¼1½ ;fn oSdfYid LFku nsuk laHko ugha gS rks mlds }kjk vfrdze.k dks o” kkZdky esa ugha gVkuk pkfg; sA ¼2½ blh o” kZ vfrdze.k fd;k gks mUgsa o” kkZdky lekIr gksus rd ugh gVkuk 3 pkfg; sA ¼3½ xqefV;k¡] Bsys vksj O;kolkf;d vLFkkbZ vfrdze.k Hkh oSdfYid LFku miyC/k djk;s tkus rd ugha gVkuk pkfg; sA

Learned counsel for the respondents contended on 11.06.2025 respondent-authority concerned has issued notice to the petitioner, to which, she replied vide Annexure P-2. As per Annexure P-3, by way of agreement petitioner has purchased the land in question, but there is no sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has filed an application before the concerned Tahsildar for obtaining the Patta of the said land which shows that petitioner is a encroacher of the government land, hence, a direction be issued to the petitioner to vacate the premises within stipulated time.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned notice.

However, it is made clear that no further time shall be given to the petitioner. CC as per rules. Sd/- J/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge