[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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
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
