(Mrs.) Saraswati Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 4705/2026 (Mrs. Preeti Sahu vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same.

¶41

"10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Issue a writ of certiorari /mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing any notice/order of demolition issued by the Respondents in respect of the Petitioners' residential property situated at Part of Khasra No. 325/1270 (admeasuring

¶42

4

¶43

677 Sq. Ft.), Ward No. 52, Village Mathpuraina, Patwari Halka No. 61, Revenue Board Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur CG.;

¶44

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the Order annexed as Annexure-P/1 and direct the Respondent-Authorities to maintain status quo till the decision of this WPC. An Application for Grant of Interim Relief/Stay is enclosed separately.

¶45

10.3 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court."

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4, without assigning any reason and without following the prescribed procedure, issued a notice dated 27.02.2026 under Sections 293(1)(II) and 302, proposing demolition of the petitioner's house. It is submitted that the said notice was issued in the name of the petitioner's husband, Dharmendra Sahu, who is living separately from the petitioner and is neither the owner nor the titlehoider of the property in question. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner purchased the land in question on 08.09.2025, measuring 677 sq. ft., situated at Ward No. 52, Village Mathpuraina, Raipur, and mutation was thereafter effected in her favour. The petitioner subsequently raised construction over the said land and has also paid the property tax in respect thereof. It is contended that, despite the petitioner being the owner and in possession of the property, no notice has been issued to her and

¶47

5

¶48

no opportunity of hearing has been afforded. The notice issued in the name of her husband also does not clearly mention the Khasra number, area or house number and does not provide any effective opportunity to submit a reply. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been orally informed by the municipal authorities that the house is likely to be demolished from 11.09.2026 onwards. It is, therefore, submitted that any such demolition without issuing notice to the petitioner and without affording her an opportunity of hearing would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and due process of law.

¶49

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submits that, upon enquiry, if it is found that the houses in question have been constructed and are owned by one Dharmendra Sahu, the notices have rightly been issued in his name. However, if the petitioners' contention is that Dharmendra Sahu is neither raising the construction nor is he the titleholder of the property and that the petitioners themselves are the actual titleholders, the Municipal Corporation shall conduct an appropriate enquiry and take necessary action against the actual owner of the property in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the construction has been raised without obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authority and, therefore, appropriate action can be taken in accordance with law.

¶50

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶51

6

¶52

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that the impugned notice dated 27.02.2026 has been issued in the name of Dharmendra Sahu, whereas the petitioners contend that he is neither the owner nor the person who has raised the construction over the property in question, the said notice cannot be sustained against the petitioners. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 27.02.2026 is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the Municipal Corporation to conduct an appropriate enquiry and, if any unauthorized construction is found, to take appropriate action against the actual owner/person responsible for such construction, strictly in accordance with law.

¶53

In view of above, all these batch of petitions stand allowed and the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed in each case is hereby set aside.

¶54

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶55

Judge

¶56

Raghu Jat

(Mrs.) Saraswati Sahu v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(Mrs.) Saraswati Sahu v. the State of Chhattisgarh

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