Dismissed

G.Laxmi and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Chhattisgarh HC3 Mar 2011WP227/5724/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 227 filed regarding house allotment was withdrawn with liberty to file representation. Court dismissed the petition and directed authorities to decide representation within stipulated timeline maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted to file representation to be disposed of within two weeks. Status quo maintained regarding possession.

G.Laxmi and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

Nt:

¶2

IN THE HIGM: COUKT ©F^C^IaSSTTISGAimX-T mi.ASPUR : W.P^27:No,^^;..ZIO:1'; ,.

¶3

PETITIONERg

¶4

(A.ppellants/plaintifE)

¶5

¶6

SmtG.Laxmi Age 45 years Wd/^o

¶7

Suresh Gendley

¶8

Ku. Soma Gendley Age 16 iyers I^olLate^SureshGendley'

¶9

^&^
.^tiNi^':'iil^"'
M?"M'i?N'
t^/ ^'"^/iy"'-.»'^:'-".
s<y
i^-

¶10

ViresU Kuriiar Gendley Age 13 ^ years^{S/6 Suresh Gendley,}

¶11

Vu-endra Kumar Gendley Age 11 years S/oEafeSurestt'GeTidlley Petitibner. ri6.2:; ; t6 4 ; mihors thiough Guardian, i'sFatural Mother i ^sxA.^.fJ.axini peffGoner l'<.' rtQ.l;:::',:.:... ": :'' :•' •:::::: :;: ::, •

¶12

;^i.M|:';Tesii3eHt ;;'ildf'! 4/63' ,; (wrongly

¶13

ltl;r(l

¶14

ffi'

¶15

^l fiten®nei^.:?the:'::real^'liouse!^'no.is' ^,^®5|||21i3ndaa:::Avas',Ra|:f.KisRor; UF;((2.G.);:;i;.".''i(i,;i'::::

¶16

^,^®5|||21i3ndaa:::Avas',Ra|:f.KisRor;

¶17

'<8:

¶18

E ;:Sta^'o£C31ihattisgarht]'woug]'t

¶19

'lpsfeludantsi)'

¶20

2.i

¶21

'pBstriet'EbyeGtor Bilaspur;, - \

¶22

.(j'QmEET.issipner !;•: MuniEipal

¶23

lil'-n

¶24

•(Shhaiftisgarl't.^^' ••' ^/:^. ^

¶25

^KIE%MFl f^MS3tt sK3ICEE;32^0E:<:Q]SgtlII1»

¶26

; :lNEa&.'

¶27

9..1,

¶28

HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶29

Writ Petition (227} No. 5724 of2010

¶30

PETITIONERS

¶31

Smt. G. Laxari & others

¶32

VBRSCS

¶33

RESPONDENTS :Sfateo£ChhattisgBili&mofcer

¶34

WRITPETmONUNDBlARTICLE 227 Wt , CONSTrTUTION OFINDIA

¶35

(SB: Hon'UeMr.N.K.AearWd.J;)

¶36

Present : ShriUttamPMidey,AdvocatefQrthepetttionCT. Shri R. Tripaflu, Panel La^yer foftheStBte.

¶37

.2.

¶38

ORALORDER

¶39

(Passed on 03.03.2011)

¶40

Shri Pandey, leaa-ned counsel appearing for.the petitioners, on mstraetions, seeks permisSiiMi of tius court to vwthdraw fhis petition witii Uberty to file a representeti<n beforethe respondent No. 2 regarduig allotment pfhouse in question.

¶41

lll"-r-

¶42

Prayer is not opposed by fte responderit couasd.

¶43

Accordingly the writ petitioa is dismissed aswitiidrawn with ^ie above stated Kberty.

¶44

It is direeted that ifany re{»' »ntatiQnis made ty the petitiohers before the respondent No. 2 wrt&m a period oftwo weeks, the same shall be decided by the rtepondent'Nb. 2 wiflrin a flirflier period of;two weeks fi-om the date of filing of representarton. Till then Ihe pttrdes shaU mainttun status qub wifh regard to

¶45

possession ofthe suit property; No order as to costs.

¶46

¶47

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

¶48

Sahu

¶49

•.!•-

G.Laxmi and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Laxmi and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rajat Enterprises Partner Co. Vs Dashrath Singh and Ors.

M/S Rajat Enterprises Partner Co. Vs Sushila Bai and Ors.

M/S Rajat Enterprises Partner Co. Vs Kamal Nagesh and Ors.

Sr. Divisional Manager Vs Kaljeet Singh and Another

Ravindra Kumar Gupta Vs State of C.G.

Ajay Reddy Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.