GURMEET SINGH BEDI vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DURG Advocate - DHIRAJ KUMAR WANKHEDE — WPC/2749/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 02nd June 2026.
CNR: CGHC010213512026
Filing Number
WPC/12294/2026
Filing Date
26-May-2026
Registration No
WPC/2749/2026
Registration Date
30-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS ON GOVERNMENT LAND AND DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS. ( 1708 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
02-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.GURMEET SINGH BEDI
Adv. ANURAG JHA,AVINASH CHAND SAHU,AVINASH CHAND SAHU, ,AVINASH CHAND SAHU
Respondent(s)
-
1.MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DURG Advocate - DHIRAJ KUMAR WANKHEDE
-
2.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Adv. A.G.
-
3.COLLECTOR
Adv. A.G.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar ChandravanshiView PDF
Case Summary: WPC/2749/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed an eviction order against Gurmeet Singh Bedi (Blue Diamond Hotel proprietor) for alleged government land encroachment, finding a violation of natural justice principles. The court held that since no notice was served to the petitioner as sole proprietor—only to another person operating the hotel—the eviction order was invalid. However, the court permitted the Municipal Corporation to take fresh action against the petitioner following proper legal procedure with adequate notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Jun-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
-
26-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPC/2749/2026
Case Summary: WPC/2749/2026 The High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed an eviction order against Gurmeet Singh Bedi (Blue Diamond Hotel proprietor) for alleged government land encroachment, finding a violation of natural justice principles. The court held that since no notice was served to the petitioner as sole proprietor—only to another person operating the hotel—the eviction order was invalid. However, the court permitted the Municipal Corporation to take fresh action against the petitioner following proper legal procedure with adequate notice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts