Disposed¶40

Ashwani Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 May 2026WPC/2366/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPC No. 2366 of 2026; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Article 226 Constitution of India; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 Sections 4 and 23; Revenue Case No. B/121/2024-25; order dated 30.01.2026; appeal pending before Collector Kabirdham; interim order 09.04.2026 vacated; Tehsildar Kawardha notice dated 06.05.2026; dispossession; 15-day interim stay; liberty to pursue statutory remedy; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.; disposed 08.05.2026; neutral citation 2026:CGHC:21748.

What did the court decide?

Limited interim protection: stay of the effect and operation of the impugned removal/dispossession order dated 06.05.2026 for 15 days, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge that order before the appropriate forum where the alternative statutory remedy is available; no opinion expressed on merits.

Ashwani Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.05.2026 issued by the Tehsildar, Kawardha directing the petitioner to vacate his house is legal and valid, challenged by writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute; all questions were left open to be decided by the competent authority/forum in accordance with law.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.01.2026 is admittedly pending before the Collector, Kabirdham.

¶33

Key takeaways

Though interim protection was initially granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 09.04.2026, the same subsequently stood vacated, and it is not in dispute.ratio¶33
Considering that the petitioner resides in the subject premises with his family members and seeks only a short breathing period to make alternative arrangements and avail appropriate remedies, the Court opined that limited interim protection deserves to be granted in the interest of justice.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., order dated 08.05.2026) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 filed by Ashwani Kaushik against the order/notice dated 06.05.2026 of the Tehsildar, Kawardha directing him to vacate his house at Ghothiya Road, near Junwani Chowk, Ward No. 25, Kawardha by 07.05.2026, failing which coercive dispossession was proposed on 08.05.2026. The notice flowed from the order dated 30.01.2026 in Revenue Case No. B/121/2024-25 under Sections 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, allowing the application of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (senior citizens) for maintenance and possession. The petitioner's appeal against the order dated 30.01.2026 was admittedly pending before the Collector, Kabirdham, and the interim stay granted on 09.04.2026 had stood vacated. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned removal/dispossession order dated 06.05.2026 for 15 days, granted the petitioner liberty to challenge it before the appropriate statutory forum, and left all questions open; the writ petition was disposed of.

2026:CGHC:21748

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶6

WPC No. 2366 of 2026

¶7

Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶8

1 - Ashwani Kaushik S/o Shri Sukhiram Kaushik Aged About 50 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Sukhram In P/1) R/o Ghotiya Road, Near Junwani Chowk, Ward No. 25, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - The Tehsildar, Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Sukhiram Kaushik S/o Lt. Shri Ramsharan Kaushik Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Kapa, Post Khairbana Kala, Tehsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Shrimati Uma Bai Kaushik W/o Shri Sukhiram Kaushik Aged About

¶16

¶17

70 Years R/o Village Kapa, Post Khairbana Kala, Tehsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶18

6 - Rajesh Kaushik S/o Shri Sukhiram Kaushik Aged About 48 Years R/o Junwani Road, Near Jio Tower, Ward No. 26, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

¶21

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.

¶22

SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

08.05.2026

¶25

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the order dated 06.05.2026 issued by the Tehsildar, Kawardha, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the house situated at Ghothiya Road, near Junwani Chowk, Ward No. 25, Kawardha, District Kabirdham by 07.05.2026, failing which coercive action for dispossession was proposed to be undertaken on 08.05.2026 at 4:00 PM.

¶26

Facts of the case are that the petitioner has been residing in the subject house since the year 2003 along with his family members and the said property is his only residential accommodation. It has been stated that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 initiated proceedings

¶27

¶28

under Sections 4 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking maintenance as well as possession of the subject property. The said proceedings were registered as Revenue Case No. B/121/2024-25 before the competent authority and vide order dated 30.01.2026, the application preferred by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 came to be allowed, whereby the petitioner and another were directed to pay maintenance amount and also vacate the suit premises. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.01.2026, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Kabirdham. In the said appeal, an interim order dated 09.04.2026 was passed staying the operation of the order passed by the SDM, Kawardha. Subsequently, the aforesaid interim protection came to be vacated and thereafter the Tehsildar, Kawardha issued the impugned notice dated 06.05.2026 directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises. The petitioner submits that the said notice was served upon him on 07.05.2026.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the appeal against the order dated 30.01.2026 is still pending before the Collector, Kabirdham, the respondents have proceeded in undue haste by issuing the impugned notice directing dispossession within an extremely short period. It is submitted that the petitioner was unaware that the interim order granted earlier had been vacated and he came to know about the same only upon receipt of the notice dated 06.05.2026. Learned counsel further submits

¶30

¶31

that the petitioner has no other alternative accommodation and immediate dispossession of the petitioner and his family from their only residential house would cause grave hardship and irreparable injury. It is therefore prayed that some reasonable breathing time may be granted to the petitioner so as to enable him to make necessary arrangements for alternate accommodation and avail such remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law.

¶32

Learned State counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned action has been taken pursuant to the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is further submitted that once the interim order granted by the appellate authority stood vacated, the authorities were justified in proceeding further in accordance with law.

¶33

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 30.01.2026 is admittedly pending before the Collector, Kabirdham. It is also not in dispute that though interim protection was initially granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 09.04.2026, the same subsequently stood vacated. The impugned notice dated 06.05.2026 directing dispossession appears to have been served

¶34

¶35

upon the petitioner on 07.05.2026 and the dispossession is proposed to be carried out immediately thereafter.

¶36

Considering the fact that the petitioner is residing in the subject premises along with his family members and seeks only a short breathing period to make alternative arrangements and avail appropriate remedies, this Court is of the opinion that limited interim protection deserves to be granted in the interest of justice.

¶37

Accordingly, purely as an interim measure and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the effect and operation of the impugned removal/dispossession order dated 06.05.2026 shall remain stayed for a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today.

¶38

It is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the order dated 06.05.2026 before the appropriate forum where the alternative statutory remedy is available.

¶39

It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the dispute and all questions are left open to be decided by the competent authority/forum in accordance with law.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶41

sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶42

Judge

¶43

Vishakha

Ashwani Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwani Kaushik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Shahabuddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Chhabra Bus Service Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Srinivash Paul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwan Singh Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh