1 2025:CGHC:43168 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 870 of 2025 1 - Smt. Shanta Dani W/o S.N. Dani Aged About 79 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Amita Masih W/o Rajendra Masih Aged About 54 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Shanti Sendry W/o Mithlesh Sendry Aged About 49 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Sahid Hussain S/o Gazanfar Hussain Aged About 40 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Apurba Mridha S/o Swapan Kumar Aged About 36 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Naveen Singh S/o A.M. Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Vinit Masih S/o Nirmal Masih Aged About 35 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Shanta Brown W/o Isha Charan Singh Aged About 72 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Arshad Hussain S/o Gazanfar Hussain Aged About 44 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - R.K. Sonwani S/o Shiv Prasad Sonwani Aged About 63 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 11 - Ramgopal Bijhwar S/o Sukhsagar Binjhwar Aged About 54 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 12 - Subhash Willian S/o John William Aged About 54 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Brijnand Sahu S/o Kholbahara Aged About 49 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 14 - Rajesh Sonwani S/o Rajendra Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 15 - Manoj Jangde S/o Mohan Das Jangde Aged About 29 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 16 - Sangita Khandey D/o Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 20 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 17 - Ishwari Bai Banjare W/o Sonu Banjare Aged About 27 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 18 - Smt. Rajeshwari Ray W/o Raghvendra Ray @ Ravindra Ray Aged About 33 Years R/o Mission Hospital Campus, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Tahsildar Najul Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner Nagar Nigam Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashkarn Singh and Mr. Jatin Bhatt, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Mr. R.S. Marhas along with Mr. Venktesh Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. The applicants have filed the present MCC for seeking extension of time granted vide order dated 25.07.2025 in WPC No. 3964 of 2025. 2. The applicants had preferred WPC No. 3964 of 2025 against the notices of eviction issued by the Tahsildar Najul, Bilaspur, C.G. on 23.07.2025 asking the petitioners to vacate the premises within 48 hours. The matter came up for hearing on 25.07.2025, when this 3 Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe, inter alia, as follows- “4. In the present petition, the petitioners are tenants of the lessee and the Collector has passed the order against the lessee. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this petition. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners requested the Court that the petitioners may not be evicted during the monsoon/rainy season keeping in view the humanitarian and practical difficulties involved. 5. ….. XXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX However, considering the ongoing monsoon/rainy season, 30 days time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises. The petitioners have furnished an undertaking before this Court stating that they will be vacating the said premises within the said period.” 3. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have in the meantime attempted to arrange for alternate accommodation and vacate the premises. However, owing to the continuous rains, and health concerns among the family 4 members, not all of the petitioners have been able to arrange for and shift to alternate accommodations. He further submits that looking to the age and weather conditions the applicants hence are constrained to seek the benevolent indulgence of this Hon’ble Court, to be granted some more time, until the end of the monsoon season, to vacate the premises. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied his argument on 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 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 5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention made by the counsel for the applicants and contends that this Court passed the order dated 25.07.2025 in WPC No. 3964 of 2025 on the undertaking given by the applicants that they will be vacating the said premises within the said period of 30 days. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, 5 submissions of the counsels and considering the ongoing monsoon/rainy season, only on the ground of mercy, 30 days time is granted to the applicants herein to vacate the premises. 8. It is made clear that the aforesaid period of 30 days will be considered as the last opportunity to the applicants to vacate the said premises. Upon failure to do so within the stipulated period of 30 days, it shall be open to the respondent authorities to take action against the applicants in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above, the present MCC is allowed to the extent herein-above provided. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima