Chattisgarh High Court
Jaspal Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 July, 2026
1
CGHC010274772026 2026:CGHC:31585
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AVINASH
SHARMA
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
WPC No. 3730 of 2026
SHARMA
Judgment Reserved On : 22.07.2026.
Date: 2026.07.23
15:23:03 +0530
Judgment Delivered On : 23.07.2026.
1 - Jhamman Sahu S/o- Shri H.K. Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o- 126/3, Ward No.
26, Santara Badi, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
3 - Secretary And Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District- Durg (C.G.)
4 - Additional District Magistrate Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
5 - Tahsildar Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
6 - Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg District- Durg
(C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3794 of 2026
1 – Shahed Khan S/o Habeb Khan Aged About 45 Years R/o -05, Behind Rao
Cottage, Near Sahu Kirana, Kasaridih, Durg, District- Durg, C.G.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District- Durg, C.G.
2
3 – Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District- Durg, C.G.
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg District- Durg, C.G.
5 – Tahsildar Durg District- Durg, C.G.
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg District- Durg,
C.G.
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3790 of 2026
1 – Jaspal Singh S/o Shri Harbhajan Singh Aged About 51 Years R/o- House No.
63, Ward No. 25, Vtc Durg, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg District Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg District Durg (C.G.)
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg District- Durg
(C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3789 of 2026
Gulam Rahmani S/o Late Gulam Mustafa, Aged About 44 Years R/o Kasaridih,
Ward No. 42 Near Sagar Tent House, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg,
District Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
3
6 – Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg District -Durg
(C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3787 of 2026
1 – Piyush Pandey S/o Chandrashekhar Pandey Aged About 46 Years R/o M I G C-
495, Padhmanabhpur Near Mini Stadium Durg, District Durg C.G.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahandi
Bhawan New Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G.
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg Disrict Durg C.G.
3 – Secretary And Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District Durg C.G.
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg District Durg C.G.
5 – Tehsildar Durg District Durg C.G.
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department Durg Division Durg District Durg
C.G.
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3786 of 2026
1 – Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Keshavram Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No.41
Kelabadi Near Ramesh Thekedar Gali, Subhash Nagar V T C Durg District- Durg
(C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi
Bhawan New Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg District Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department Durg Division Durg District- Durg
(C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
4
WPC No. 3785 of 2026
1 – Mayank Pandey S/o Chandrashekhar Pandey Aged About 43 Years R/o M I G
C- 495, Padmanabhpur Near Mini Stadium Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh , Through Secretary Department of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G.
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District- Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg District Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department Durg Division Durg District- Durg
(C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3772 of 2026
1 – Ashok Lawhatre S/o Tejram Lawhatre Aged About 55 Years R/o- 452,
Ambedkar Nagar, Ward No. 56, Street No. 1, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh , Through Secretary Department of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G.
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg District Durg
(C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3803 of 2026
1 – Abdul Rafiq Khan S/o Subayat Khan Aged About 56 Years R/o Qr. No. 727
Ward 44, Kasaridih Durg Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) 491001, Proprietor- Khan
Bus Body Works Shop No. 88, Ravishankar Stadium, Durg, 491001
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
5
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh , Through Secretary Department of Revenue and
Disastrous Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
C.G.
2 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary, Department Of Public Work
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G.
3 – Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti Reg. No. 3645 Ravishankar Stadium, Durg Tahsil
And District- Durg, C.G.
4 – District Collector Cum Chairman Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Ravishankar
Stadium, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G.
5 – Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Secretary Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti
Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G.
6 – Sub- Divisional Officer Public Work Department Division Durg, Near New Bus
Stand Durg, District- Durg, C.G.
7 – Assistant Registrar Firms And Societies Durg Division Padmanabhpur Durg,
District – Durg, C.G.
8 – Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg, C.G.
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3801 of 2026
1 – Harjeet Singh S/o Late Dilip Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Qr. No. 184 Ward
11 Street No. 2 Shankar Nagar, Durg Tahsil And District Durg, C.G. 491001,
Proprietor- Jeet Denting Painting Work Shop No. 75, Ravishankar Stadium, Durg.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh , Through Secretary Department of Revenue and
Disastrous Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
C.G.
2 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Secretary, Department Of Public Work
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, C.G.
3 – Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti Reg. No. 3645 Ravishankar Stadium, Durg Tahsil
And District- Durg, C.G.
4 – District Collector Cum Chairman Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Ravishankar
Stadium, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G.
5 – Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Secretary Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti
Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, C.G.
6
6 – Sub- Divisional Officer Public Work Department Division Durg, Near New Bus
Stand Durg, District- Durg, C.G.
7 – Assistant Registrar Firms And Societies Durg Division Padmanabhpur Durg,
District – Durg, C.G.
8 – Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg, C.G.
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3800 of 2026
1 – Sameer Khan S/o Fazlu Rahman Khan Aged About 46 Years R/o Near
Gulmohar Apartments, Ward No. 41, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg,
District Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg District- Durg
(C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3769 of 2026
1 – Beant Singh Dhunna S/o Harbhajan Singh Aged About 57 Years R/o 63, Ward
No.25 Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan New Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District- Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
7
6 – Executive Engineer Public Works Department Durg Division Durg District- Durg
(C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3770 of 2026
Ayaz Ahamed Khan S/o Mohammed Jamil Khan Aged About 67 Years R/o H.No.
211, Ward No. 08, Takiya Para 2, Durg District Durg C.G.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur C.G
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District Durg C.G.
3 – Secretary And Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District Durg C.G.
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg District Durg C.G.
5 – Tehsildar Durg District Durg C.G.
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department Durg Division Durg District Durg
C.G.
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3768 of 2026
1 – Sheikh Rajjak S/o Sheikh Abdul Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 41, Post
Office Durg, Kasaridih, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg
District Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg District Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg, District Durg (C.G.)
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg District Durg
(C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
8
WPC No. 3757 of 2026
1 – Jitendra Singh Kondal S/o Daljeet Singh Aged About 56 Years R/o H No. 315,
Guru Nanak Nagar, Amdi Mandir, Ward-24, Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 – Chairman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh
3 – Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg,
District Durg Chhattisgarh
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh
5 – Tahsildar Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh
6 – Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 3751 of 2026
1 – Minhajuddin S/o- Mumtaz Hussain, Aged About 59 Years R/o- Ward No. 41,
Near Bazar, Kelabadi, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi
Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Chirman And Collector Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District- Durg (C.G.)
3 – Secretary And Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg,
District- Durg (C.G.)
4 – Additional District Magistrate Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
5 – Tahsildar Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)
6 – Executive Engineer, Public Work Department , Durg Division Durg, District-
Durg (C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
For respective Petitioner(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Shri Ali
Afzaal Mirza, Advocate and Shri RK Gomasta,
Advocate.
9
For State/Respondent(s) : Shri RK Gupta, Addl AG, Shri SS Choubey, GA,
Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Dr. Arham Siddiqui
and Shri Amit Nayak, Panel Lawyers.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. Since a common grievance has been raised in all these writ petitions and the
challenge has been made to the impugned pre-eviction notice dated
25.06.2026, they were clubbed together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. All the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned pre-eviction notice
dated 25.06.2026 issued by the Secretary & Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti, District Durg, C.G. whereby the
petitioners have been directed to vacate their respective shops which were
allotted to them on or before 24.07.2026 as according to the report of Public
Works Department, the shops allotted to the petitioners are now in a
dilapidated condition which could be dangerous and they are now not in a
condition of being used. The petitioners in light of said report of PWD were
issued pre-eviction notice and were directed to vacate the shops, failing
which, they will be evicted from the shops with the help of Administration for
which, the petitioners will be solely responsible and any expenses incurred
will be realised from the petitioners/shopkeepers through revenue recovery
proceedings. The petitioners are seeking interference of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating that the authorities have
abruptly issued the impugned eviction notice which is infringement of rights
granted under Article 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and they have filed
10
these petitions for the following reliefs:-
10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner
from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal.
10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to quash
the impugned notice dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure-P/1)
issued by the respondent no. 3, in the interest of justice.
10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to direct
the respondent authorities to rehabilitate the petitioner by
giving alternative shop before evicting him.
10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be please to
respondent authorities to grant priority and preference to the
petitioner while allotting shop in the newly constructed
stadium.
10.5 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
3. WPC No.3803 of 2026 has been filed for the following reliefs:-
10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to quash the
impugned notice dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure-P/1) issued
by the respondent no 5 in the interest of justice.
10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) to quash the
impugned decision on agenda no.-1 dated 16.06.2026
(Annexure-P/2) taken by the respondent no 4 and 5 in the
interest of justice.
10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) directing the
respondent authorities to the rehabilitated the PETITIONER
at appropriate place according to the physibility of the
profession to the PETITIONER.
10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the
case along with the cost of the petition.
4. For the purposes of disposal, facts pleaded in WPC No.3730 of 2026 are
being referred to. The petitioner was allotted shop no. 104 for a monthly rent
of Rs. 600/- per month in addition to that Rs. 5000/- was also deposited by
11
the petitioner in view of the order dated 25.05.2005 issued by the
respondent no. 3. Since the petitioner was allotted the aforementioned
shop, he was running a shop in the name of Vaibhavi Printers (Choice
Center) and was regularly paying the rent to the respondents and was
earning his livelihood for Photographs in last 21 years. The petitioner has got
his shop registered as per the Udyam Registration Scheme and the date of
Udyam Registration is 03.04.2025, after which the petitioner was issued
Udyam Registration Certificate. The expenses in connection to the
aforementioned allotted shop to the petitioner is born by himself and the
maintenance, electricity charges are being paid by the petitioner from time to
time. All of a sudden, a meeting was conveyed on 16.06.2026 by the
respondents in presence of members of Parliament Durg and in the said
meeting, decision was taken with an agenda to evict the shop allotted to the
petitioner citing the reason that, as the construction of the stadium premises
in extremely dilapidated condition and there is apprehension of accident due
to the vulnerable condition of the premises, therefore eviction notice dated
25.06.2026 was issued to the petitioner and he was directed to vacate the
shop allotted to him on or before 24.07.2026. In the said time frame, if the
shop is not vacated by the petitioner, in that condition forceful eviction may
also be done if needed by the respondent authorities. As the proceedings
have been initiated without following due process of law and without framing
any rehabilitation policy and the petitioner has been directed to the vacate
the shop on or before 24.07.2026, as the existing stadium has been decided
to be leased to BCCI which is evident from the proceeding dated
16.06.2026, which has been handed over to petitioner along with the notice.
12
5. Ms. Fouziya Mirza, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the allotment of the shop in favour of the petitioner was made
by Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Durg, which is a duly registered Society
registered on 28.02.1974 bearing Registration No. 3645. The allotment
made by the said competent authority has never been cancelled or set aside
in accordance with law. She submits that the impugned order dated
25.06.2026 has been issued by the Secretary-cum-Sub Divisional Officer,
Jila Kridangan Samiti, Durg, who is neither the authority that granted the
allotment nor the competent authority to terminate the petitioner’s tenancy or
allotment. The petitioner has continuously paid rent to Jila Kridangan Nirman
Samiti, Durg, thereby establishing a subsisting landlord-tenant relationship.
Consequently, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and liable to be
quashed.
6. Learned Senior counsel submits that the above eviction notice (Annexure-
P/1), has issued by respondent no. 3 (Secretary and Sub Divisional Officer
Revenue, Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg) without any authority, whereas the
allotment order dated 25.05.2005 (Annexure-P/2) has been issued by Jila
Kridangan Nirman Samiti having registered on 28.02.1974 (Annexure-P/7)
and the rent receipt is also being paid to the same Samiti, though as per the
minutes dated 16.06.2026, the meeting has been convened by Executive
Committee of Jila Kridangan Samiti. The eviction notice has been issued
without following due process of law as even a person in unlawful
possession cannot be disturbed forcibly {see Ajay Kumar vs. Northern
Railways reported in (2012) 12 SCC 128}. The petitioners are not
trespassers or encroachers, but are holding permissive possession of the
13
shop and they cannot be thrown out of possession forcibly but can be
evicted only by taking recourse to law { see Rajesh Kumar Kotwani vs.
Senani and Others {WPC No.1729 of 2024}}. The respondent authorities
without taking consideration any statue being referred in the notice without
following the procedure under the Public Premises Eviction Act cannot be
allowed to disposses the petitioners in violation of law and without framing
any rehabilitation scheme and without givnig any proper alternative premises
for running their shops on which their livelihood depends in the month of
rainy season {see Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal vs.
Government of India & Ors., SLP No.19714/2021}.
7. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has reliably learnt
that the impugned eviction proceedings have been initiated solely to facilitate
the proposed redevelopment of the Stadium and its proposed lease in favour
of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). The plea that the Stadium
is in a dilapidated condition is merely a pretext to remove the existing lawful
occupants. The petitioner, along with other similarly situated shopkeepers,
has submitted detailed representations requesting that no eviction be
undertaken without first providing proper rehabilitation or alternative
accommodation. However, the respondents have failed to consider or decide
the said representations. It is further submitted that the respondents have
already finalized a project for redevelopment of the Stadium and its
proposed handing over to the BCCI. Despite having ample opportunity, the
respondents have not framed any rehabilitation or resettlement scheme for
the existing lawful occupants before directing their eviction. Such action is
arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of fairness. She further
14
submits that that the impugned eviction order dated 25.06.2026 has been
issued during the rainy season granting an unreasonably short period for
vacating the premises. The respondents have neither followed the due
process of law nor taken into consideration the grave hardship that would be
caused to the petitioner and his family. It is submitted that the respondents,
being State authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution,
cannot deprive the petitioner of his right to livelihood and shelter by adopting
arbitrary methods. Any action resulting in demolition or dispossession
without following the procedure established by law amounts to a violation of
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is in lawful
possession of the shop pursuant to a valid allotment and has been regularly
paying rent. If the respondents intend to redevelop the Stadium by leasing it
to the BCCI for a period of 33 years, they are under a constitutional and
legal obligation to formulate a fair rehabilitation and resettlement policy for
the existing lawful occupants before undertaking any demolition. The
impugned eviction notice has been issued without affording the petitioner an
effective opportunity of hearing, without granting adequate time to respond,
and without framing any rehabilitation or resettlement policy. Such action is
arbitrary and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Further, the respondents
have failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice and the due process
of law. Since the impugned action directly affects the petitioner’s livelihood
and shelter, strict compliance with constitutional safeguards is mandatory.
The respondents have suddenly selected the petitioner’s shop for demolition
in furtherance of the proposed Stadium project without first evolving any
15
policy for rehabilitation or providing any alternative accommodation. The
circumstances clearly indicate arbitrariness and mala fide exercise of power.
The proposed demolition is wholly unjustified and contrary to the Rule of
Law. Even assuming that redevelopment is necessary, the respondents
cannot dispossess the petitioner except by following the procedure
established by law. Right to livelihood and the right to shelter are integral
facets of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Displacing the petitioner without reasonable notice, due process and
rehabilitation would render the petitioner and his family destitute and would
amount to an unconstitutional deprivation of fundamental rights. It is
submitted that the petitioner’s shop constitutes the sole source of livelihood
for the petitioner and his family. The shop is the result of years of hard work
and investment and provides financial security and dignity. Its arbitrary
demolition without rehabilitation would irreparably prejudice not only the
petitioner but his entire family. Laslty, it is submitted that the allotment order
specifically stipulates payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs.600/-,
thereby clearly establishing a landlord-tenant relationship between the
petitioner and Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Durg. Consequently, the
petitioner cannot be evicted except in accordance with the due process of
law. The impugned order, having been issued without following such
procedure, is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set
aside by this Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Gomasta submits that the petitioner
has been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the respondent Society,
which is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental and
16
legal rights. The impugned action has unlawfully deprived the petitioner of
the right to carry on his profession and earn his livelihood. Therefore, the
entire decision taken by the respondent Society, including the impugned
eviction notice, is arbitrary, improper, unjustified, illegal, and liable to be
quashed. The sole object behind the issuance of the impugned eviction
notice is to evict the petitioner so as to facilitate the allotment of the land to
the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for the construction of a new
cricket stadium under the pretext that the existing stadium building is in a
dilapidated condition. The impugned action is nothing but an attempt to
deprive the petitioner of his only source of livelihood and to snatch away his
bread and butter. The aims and objects of the respondent Society, as
provided under Clause 9 of its Bye-laws, are to promote and develop various
sports activities in Durg District. However, the respondent Society has taken
a decision to hand over the stadium to the Board of Control for Cricket in
India (BCCI), which is beyond the scope and mandate of its aims and
objects. The proposal to grant lease or otherwise transfer the stadium
premises to BCCI is, therefore, contrary to the Society’s Bye-laws and is
liable to be declared illegal. He submits that the report dated 01.06.2026
submitted by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Durg
Division, Durg (C.G.), declaring the building situated within the stadium
premises to be in a dilapidated condition, has been prepared without
conducting any proper inspection or physical verification of the structure.
Consequently, the said report is arbitrary, factually incorrect, and devoid of
any scientific or technical basis, and therefore cannot be relied upon for
initiating eviction proceedings against the petitioner.
17
9. At the outset, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have
erroneously invoked the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act,
2011. The said Act has no application to the present case in view of Section
3 thereof, which expressly exempts premises belonging to the State
Government from the operation of the Act. Consequently, the petitioners
cannot claim any statutory protection against eviction under the said
enactment. The petitioners’ contention founded upon the Chhattisgarh Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 is self-defeating.
Until the expiry of the notice period on 24.07.2026, the petitioners remain
contractual tenants and not unauthorised occupants, so that the Act of 1974
has no present application; and the submission that it must be invoked only
thereafter, to secure a fresh round of notice and hearing once the petitioners
are rendered unauthorised occupants, is but a device to prolong occupation
and defeat a validly issued contractual notice. A tenant whose tenancy has
been lawfully determined cannot invoke the machinery meant for
unauthorised occupants to resist the very eviction that flows from his own
contract. The controversy sought to be raised as to the existence of two
distinct bodies, namely the District Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Durg and the
District Kridangan Samiti, Durg, is wholly misconceived. There exists but one
Samiti the District Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Durg of which the SDO(R) is the
Secretary; the shorter description is a mere clerical variation denoting the
same body, as is evident from the minutes of its meeting on record
(Annexure P-2 in W.P.C No. 3801/26 & 3802/20). No question of title or
jurisdiction arises from a difference in nomenclature, and the petitioners can
find no right upon it. It is further submitted that the relationship between the
18
parties is governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement executed
at the time of allotment of the shops. The agreement specifically empowers
Respondent No. 3 to terminate the occupation and require the occupants to
vacate the premises upon issuance of one month’s prior notice. In the
present case, the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the rent
agreement stipulations by issuing a pre-eviction notice dated 25.06.2026,
thereby fully complying with the agreed procedure. The contention that due
process has not been followed is, therefore, wholly untenable. The necessity
for eviction has arisen on account of compelling public safety considerations.
Upon receiving complaints regarding the deteriorated condition of the
commercial complex, the competent authority sought a technical inspection
from the Public Works Department. The PWD, after inspection, reported that
the building is in a highly dilapidated and unsafe condition, posing a serious
risk to the occupants and the general public. In view of the expert opinion,
the respondents had no option but to initiate eviction proceedings so that
demolition and necessary reconstruction could be undertaken. The decision
is thus founded upon expert assessment and larger public interest and
cannot be termed arbitrary or mala fide. The petitioners cannot claim any
vested or preferential right to rehabilitation, alternate accommodation, or re-
allotment of shops. Their occupation is purely contractual and subject to the
conditions of the allotment. Upon termination of the agreement, they have no
enforceable legal right to continue in possession or to seek reservation of
any future allotment. If and when new shops are constructed, allotment shall
be made in accordance with the applicable policy, rules, and a transparent
selection process open to all eligible applicants. Any claim of preferential
19
treatment by the petitioners is contrary to law and would itself violate the
principles of equality. The plea that eviction during the rainy season would
cause hardship is equally without substance. The petitioners were served
with the eviction notice on 25.06.2026, granting them the contractually
stipulated period of one month to vacate. Instead of complying with the
notice, they approached this Court only on 11.07.2026, towards the fag end
of the notice period. Having failed to avail themselves of the opportunity
provided, the petitioners cannot now seek to prolong their unauthorized
occupation on equitable grounds. It is settled law that once the contractual
period has expired or the licence/tenancy has been validly terminated in
accordance with its terms, the occupant has no legal right to continue in
possession. The respondents, being custodians of public property, are under
a statutory and constitutional obligation to protect public assets and ensure
that unsafe structures do not endanger human life. Interference by this Court
at this stage would impede a bona fide administrative decision taken in
public interest. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is respectfully prayed
that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petitions as being devoid
of merit, uphold the validity of the impugned eviction notices, and permit the
respondents to proceed with demolition and reconstruction of the building in
accordance with law.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record,
it emerges that the petitioners are occupying their respective shops pursuant
to allotment orders/agreements executed by the competent authority on
payment of monthly rent. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been
carrying on their respective businesses from the said shops for nearly two
20
decades or more, and for many of them the shops constitute their principal
source of livelihood. It is also borne out from the material placed on record
that the commercial complex in which the shops are situated has been
reported by the Public Works Department to be in a dilapidated and unsafe
condition requiring demolition and reconstruction.
11. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the petitioners do not
possess any vested or indefeasible right to continue in occupation of the
shops indefinitely. Equally, however, the State and its instrumentalities, while
taking action for eviction in public interest, are expected to act in a manner
that is fair, reasonable and consistent with constitutional values. The
petitioners have been carrying on their business from the premises for a
considerable period of time and their livelihood is directly dependent upon
the said establishments. Directing them to vacate the premises during the
rainy season, without affording them a reasonable opportunity to make
alternative arrangements or to resettle their business, would result in undue
hardship.
12. The State, being a welfare State, is expected to balance public interest with
the legitimate concerns of citizens whose livelihood is likely to be affected by
administrative action. While ensuring public safety by removing occupants
from an unsafe structure is undoubtedly a legitimate objective, the
authorities cannot ignore the consequences that such action may have upon
the livelihood of the petitioners. The record reveals that the petitioners have
submitted representations requesting reasonable time and appropriate
rehabilitation or alternative arrangements. The said representations deserve
due consideration before any coercive action is undertaken.
21
13. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the
fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation,
trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest
of the general public under Article 19(6). The right to livelihood has also
been recognized as an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution. Although the petitioners cannot insist upon
continuation of their occupation contrary to law, the procedure adopted for
their eviction must be fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary so as to adequately
safeguard their constitutional rights.
14. Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the long-standing
occupation of the petitioners, the fact that their businesses constitute their
primary source of livelihood, and the prevailing rainy season, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served
by directing the respondents to reconsider the representation of the
petitioners with a hope of alternative arrangements by the petitioners for
shifting their respective establishments.
15. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3-Secretary and Sub-Divisional Officer
(Revenue), Jila Krindangan Samiti Durg, District Durg C.G. is directed to
reconsider the representations submitted by the petitioners for providing
alternative arrangements to petitioners for running their shops or to pass
appropriate reasoned orders thereon, after affording them an opportunity of
hearing, within a reasonable period. The respondents shall also consider
providing reasonable assistance, or any other lawful arrangement to
facilitate the petitioners in shifting their business establishments. It is further
directed that no coercive action for eviction shall be taken against the
22
petitioners for a period of four months from the date of this order. However, it
is made clear that, since the shops have been found to be in a dilapidated
condition, the petitioners may continue to carry on their business therein for
a period of four months at their own risk and cost. In the event of any mishap
or untoward incident occurring during this period, the petitioners alone shall
be solely responsible for the consequences thereof. The State and its
authorities shall bear no liability or responsibility for any such mishap or
incident. Upon expiry of the said period, it shall be open to the respondents
to proceed in accordance with law.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand
disposed of.
17. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the rival claims of the parties. The present order has been passed only
with a view to balance the competing public interest of ensuring public safety
with the petitioners’ need for reasonable time to make alternative
arrangements for their livelihood.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash
The date when the The date when the The date when the judgment is
judgment is reserved judgment is uploaded on the website
pronounced
Operative Full
22.07.2026 23.07.2026 —— 23.07.2026
