Chattisgarh High Court
Babita Giri vs Urban State Administration And ... on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11366-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 125 of 2026
Babita Giri D/o Late Devchand Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Shivere
Bhavan, Ward No. 40 Chawani Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Pin Code
490001.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. Urban State Administration And Development Through Secretary,
Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. District Magistrate Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
4. Bal Krishna Nayadu Assistant Revenue Officer, Nagar Palika
Nigam Zone 04, Khursipar Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh.
5. Amarnath Dubey Zone Commissioner Nagar Palika Nigam Zone 4
Khuripar Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
6. Commissioner Nagar Nigam Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
7. Superintendent of Police Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
Digitally signed by (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date:
2026.03.10 18:32:57 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Janu Khare, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Janu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State.
2. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel, submits that his name has been wrongly printed in the cause list and that he has no authority to represent Respondent No. 6.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"a. To kindly grant order, or issue a direction directing respondent No. 7 to register an FIR against the accused officials for illegal demolition and criminal trespass under Section 324 (BNS), Section 329 (BNS), Section 198 (BNS).
b. To kindly grant order for due action against the culpable officer.
c. To kindly grant any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the 3 facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice.
d. To kindly grant order to Direct the State to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty-Five Lakhs) to the petitioner for the loss of shelter and dignity, following the precedent of Manoj Tibrewal Akash.
e. To kindly grant order to Direct the Respondents to restore the demolished structure at their own personal cost."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and the daughter of the late lawful holder of land situated in the Neezi Abadi area at Plot No. 106, Shivere Bhavan, Ward No. 40, Chhawani, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). The said land was granted through a Land Lease (Patta) under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoomihin Vyakti (Pattadriti Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short, 'Adhiniyam of 1984'). The lease in respect of the said property was duly registered on 05.04.2003. The petitioner and her family have been residing on and peacefully possessing the said land for more than fifty years. He further submits that the petitioner's family has been in continuous possession of the said land for more than three generations, and presently the petitioner represents the fourth generation in occupation of the property as reflected in the ancestral family lineage.
5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the year 1964 the Government had issued a notice proposing 4 compensation with respect to the said private Abadi land. In the said notice it was clearly recorded that the petitioner's predecessor-in- interest was in possession of approximately 861 square feet of land. However, the petitioner's forefathers declined to accept compensation and chose to continue residing on the said land. It is also submitted that the petitioner and her family have been continuously paying applicable land taxes for the said property for several decades and have also been regularly paying electricity bills in respect of the residential premises constructed thereon. It is further contended that on 16.01.2026, the respondent authorities arrived at the petitioner's residence along with heavy machinery including bulldozers and carried out demolition without serving any prior written notice, without providing any opportunity of hearing, and without any lawful demolition order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the petitioner producing the valid Patta and the relevant map of the property before the respondent authorities, the officials proceeded to demolish the petitioner's residential house along with the adjoining veranda. It is contended that the said action was carried out in a high-handed and arbitrary manner, causing severe mental agony, loss of shelter, and destruction of the petitioner's property. According to the petitioner, such action violates the Right to Shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the constitutional Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that during the said incident the officials present at the site allegedly used abusive language, threatened the petitioner's family members including her 5 brother and sister-in-law, and forcibly removed the debris from the demolished structure. The officials allegedly threatened the petitioner by stating that they were government authorities and could take any action, and warned that the petitioner's remaining house would be the next target if the family did not vacate the premises.
7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the officer Balkrishna Naidu, who allegedly participated in and supervised the impugned action, is in fact a Data Entry Operator who has been given officiating charge of the Assistant Revenue Officer and has been performing duties in the capacity of a Revenue Officer despite not being duly appointed or authorized for such functions. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid acts demonstrate arbitrariness, misuse of authority, and unlawful interference with the petitioner's lawful possession and residence. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the grievance of the petitioner can be adequately addressed before the competent Court by filing an application under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., now corresponding to Section 175(3) or Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is further submitted that the controversy raised in the present petition already stands settled by the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020 (Waseem Haider vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Others) decided on 14.12.2020 as well as by this 6 Court in WPCR No. 333 of 2020 (Akhilesh Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) decided on 12.04.2023, wherein similar petitions were dismissed. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present petition also deserves dismissal on the same grounds.
9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the nature of relief sought in the present petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available before the competent Court under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
10. In view of the same, the present writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the appropriate forum.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan