MALTI BAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPC/1987/2026

Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010144652026

Filing Number

WPC/8349/2026

Filing Date

08-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPC/1987/2026

Registration Date

23-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS AND MIXED BAG ONES.. ( 1750 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MALTI BAI

    Adv. ROHISHEK VERMA,BHASKAR PAYASHI,BHASKAR PAYASHI, ,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV,BHASKAR PAYASHI

  2. 2.Samaru Patel

  3. 3.Surendra

  4. 4.Kapur Bai Netam

  5. 5.Kaliram

  6. 6.Ankalha Patel

  7. 7.Hansram Patel

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.District Forest Officer

  3. 3.SDO, Forest Department

  4. 4.Collector

  5. 5.Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)

  6. 6.Tahsildar Rengakhar kala

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: WPC 1987/2026 Case Adjourned. The court granted the State four weeks to file its reply with supporting documents, and subsequently granted the petitioner two weeks to file rejoinder. As interim relief, the court directed that the petitioner's crops shall not be destroyed and she be permitted to harvest them, but deferred final relief pending further arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPC/1987/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPC 1987/2026 Case Adjourned. The court granted the State four weeks to file its reply with supporting documents, and subsequently granted the petitioner two weeks to file rejoinder. As interim relief, the court directed that the petitioner's crops shall not be destroyed and she be permitted to harvest them, but deferred final relief pending further arguments. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case