1

CGHC010274772026 2026:CGHC:31585

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 3730 of 2026

Judgment Reserved On : 22.07.2026.

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

judgment is reserved

The date when the

judgment is

pronounced

The date when the judgment is

uploaded on the website

Operative Full

22.07.2026 23.07.2026 ------ 23.07.2026