Dismissed

Smt. Sunita Yadu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Apr 2024WPC/1880/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for quashing a show cause notice and directing allotment of a lease, the Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court held that since the reply was already filed, no case existed for immediate interference. The authority was directed to consider the reply and afford a hearing before deciding.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of; no interference with the show cause notice; authority directed to consider the reply and afford hearing.

Smt. Sunita Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 1880 of 2024

¶5

Smt. Sunita Yadu Wife Of Late Bhupendra Yadu Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Shitla Mandir, Village - Jora, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. Collector, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. Zone Commissioner No. 09, Municipal Corporation Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5. Additional Tahsildar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 &4 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

0 3.04.2024

¶19

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶20

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner.

¶21

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court, may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / or writs / order / or orders / to quashed the impugned show cause notice dated 10.02.2024 (Annexure P/1) and consider the prayer of the petitioner, to allot her lease of the subject house, looking to the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶22

10.3 That, any other relief, this Hon’ble Court, deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 10.02.2024 a show-

¶24

cause notice was issued by the Additional Tahsildar, Raipur. He would further submit that the petitioner has already filed a reply to the show-cause notice on

¶25

19.02.2024. He would also submit that the petitioner has got constructed a small

¶26

¶27

hut on the land in question and he has no other alternative accommodation. It is also contended that the concerned authority may be directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner before taking any decision.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose.

¶29

Heard counsel appearing for the parties.

¶30

Taking into consideration the fact that only the show-cause notice was issued on 10.02.2024 by the Additional Tahsildar, Raipur and the reply has already been filed on 19.02.2024, therefore, no case is made out for interference, however, the authority concerned is directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law after affording the due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any decision .

¶31

With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

$iddhant

Smt. Sunita Yadu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita Yadu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpanchala Chaudhary Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kalawati Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Neelam Security Service Vs Employee Provident Fund Organization

Ramsevak Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mankunwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh