SAMARIN BAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — WPC/2771/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 04th June 2026.
CNR: CGHC010216572026
Filing Number
WPC/12460/2026
Filing Date
29-May-2026
Registration No
WPC/2771/2026
Registration Date
02-Jun-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
MATTERS RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS ON GOVERNMENT LAND AND DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS. ( 1708 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
04-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 05-Jun-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SAMARIN BAI
Adv. AMIT SHARMA,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV, ,SAKET PANDEY,SUMAN KUMAR KESARY,VIVEK KUMAR YADAV
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
-
2.The Commissioner,
-
3.The Municipal Corporation Raigarh,
Adv. PANKAJ AGRAWAL
-
4.The Building Officer,
-
5.The Collector,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-Jun-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF
Case Summary: WPC/2771/2026 - Samarin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh The High Court of Chhattisgarh partially allowed Samarin Bai's petition challenging a demolition notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for unauthorized encroachment on Plot No. 114. The court found that the petitioner's actual leased land is Plot No. 108 (not 114), and directed the Municipal Corporation to conduct proper demarcation with the Nazul Officer's assistance to ascertain exact boundaries. The court permitted the respondent to proceed with any encroachment removal on Plot No. 114, which does not belong to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-Jun-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
-
29-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPC/2771/2026
Case Summary: WPC/2771/2026 - Samarin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh The High Court of Chhattisgarh partially allowed Samarin Bai's petition challenging a demolition notice issued by the Municipal Corporation for unauthorized encroachment on Plot No. 114. The court found that the petitioner's actual leased land is Plot No. 108 (not 114), and directed the Municipal Corporation to conduct proper demarcation with the Nazul Officer's assistance to ascertain exact boundaries. The court permitted the respondent to proceed with any encroachment removal on Plot No. 114, which does not belong to the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts