Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27584 (CHH)

MANORAMA VIJAY YADAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/3422/2026 · 2026-07-16

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010251352026 2026:CGHC:30429 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3422 of 2026 1 - Manorama Vijay Yadav W/o - Vijay Yadav, Aged About 42 Years R/o- 43/299, Ward No. 43, Rapta Chowk, Kisanpara, Chantidih, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Having Its Office At 4th Floor, Block D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, (C.G.)-492002. 2 - Director Urban Administration And Development Department Having Its Office At 4th Floor, Block D, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)-492002. 3 - District Collector Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 4 - Municipal Corporation Bilaspur Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Having Its Office At Vikas Bhawan, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 5 - Zone Commissioner Zone No. 07, Rajkishor Nagar Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001. 6 - Kashiram Prajapati Aged About 57 Years R/o -Jai Ambe Furniture, VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Science College Road, Chantidih, Sarkanda, Bilaspur , District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 495006. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. For Respondent-Municipal Corporation :- Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 17.07.2026 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached this Court raising a grievance with regard to the alleged encroachment over the land belonging to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, which has caused inconvenience to the local residents. He submits that since the respondent-Municipal Corporation has initiated proceedings pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, the petitioner would be satisfied if the said proceedings are taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law. He further submits that liberty may be reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in case the grievance of the petitioner still survives. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation submits that proceedings have already been 3 initiated pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that notices have already been issued to the private respondents, who have allegedly encroached upon the land belonging to the Municipal Corporation, thereby causing inconvenience to the local residents. He further submits that since notices have already been issued, the respondent- Municipal Corporation shall consider the matter and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, expeditiously. 3. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the grievance raised by the petitioner with regard to the alleged encroachment over the land belonging to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, has already been taken up for consideration by the respondent-Municipal Corporation and necessary proceedings have been initiated by issuing notices to the concerned private respondents. 4. In view of the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation that the matter shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law, no further order is required to be passed in the present writ petition. 5. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in case the grievance of the petitioner still survives. If any such application is preferred, the 4 same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha