Disposed

Baijnath Koushal v. Bhilai Steel Plant through CEO

Chhattisgarh HC23 Sept 2024WPC/4790/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged a notice directing removal of alleged encroachment within 7 days. Respondents stated they would not act on the notice and would proceed under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Nothing survived and the writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondents undertook not to act on the impugned notice and to proceed under the Public Premises Act, 1971; writ petition disposed of accordingly.

Baijnath Koushal Vs Bhilai Steel Plant through CEO — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 2

2024:CGHC:37668

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4790 of 2024

¶6

1 - Baijnath Koushal S/o Devi Dayal Koushal Aged About 68 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Near Shiv Mandir, Bhilai - 3, Charoda, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh, 490021.

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Ceo Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Steel Authority Of Inndia Ltd., Through Deputy General Manager (Enforcement), Town Service Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Deputy General Manager (Enforcement), Town Service Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

5 - Collector Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

6 - Municipal Corporation Bhilai, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corportation Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate

¶17

2 / 2

¶18

For Respondent No. 1 to : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate 3 For Respondent/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, PL Nos. 4 & 5 For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Akshat Agrawal, Advocate

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

24/09/2024

¶22

Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 11.09.2024 (Annexure P/1) by which the respondent No. 1 & 2 has directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment within a period of 7 days.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices were issued even assuming that the petitioner is in encroachment, the proper course to which the respondents can take lies under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. Therefore, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed, even otherwise only 7 days time was granted to remove the alleged encroachment.

¶24

On instructions Mr. Shakeel submits that the respondent No. 1 to 3 will not act upon the impugned notice and will proceed against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971.

¶25

In view of the statement made, nothing survives for adjudication before this Court and this writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Pawan

Baijnath Koushal v. Bhilai Steel Plant through CEO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baijnath Koushal v. Bhilai Steel Plant through CEO

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajni Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rajani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xxx Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishor Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh