[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Ram Asara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026

                                                            1




                                                                            2026:CGHC:13430
                                                                                          NAFR

                                    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                 WPC No. 1232 of 2026
                      Ram Asara S/o Panchu Pal Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Paloud, Tahsil-
                      Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                                ... Petitioner.
                                                         Versus
                      1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Housing And Environment
                      Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal
Digitally signed by
AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI
DN: cn=AJAY

                      Nagar,      Nava          Raipur,        District-  Raipur           (C.G.)
KUMAR DWIVEDI,
ou=HIGH COURT,
o=HIGH COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
st=Chhattisgarh,
c=IN
Date: 2026.03.20

                      2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority Through- Its Chief
17:22:03 +0530




                      Executive Officer, Paryavas Bhavan, North Block, Sector- 19, Nava Raipur, Atal
                      Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                                    ... Respondents.

WITH

Dharmin Bai W/o Kaluram Pardhi Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Paloud, Tahsil - Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner.

versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Paryavas Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents.

WITH

Bhakta Vidur S/o Brijlal Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Paloud, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (CG)

... Petitioner.

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Housing And Environment Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

2 - Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Development Authority Thruogh- Its Chief Executive Officer, Paryavas Bhavan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (CG) ... Respondents.

(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

For Petitioners : Mr. MPS Bhatia & Mr. B. S. Rajput, Advocates For Res No.1/State : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. AG and Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, GA respectively.

For Respondent No.2 Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate.

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board 20/03/2026

1. Since the issues raised in above three captioned petitions are the one and the

same, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by

this common order.

2. The petitioners have filed the above writ petitions under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

"10.1 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction to the respondent in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/Notice (Annexure- P/1) (16.01.2026 & 30.01.2026 respectively), in the ends of justice.

10.2 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction to the in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot/consider for

allotment the alternative land to the petitioner and for grant of financial help to the petitioner, in the ends of justice.

10.3 That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other alternative, additional writin favour of the petitioner including the cost of the petition, and in the ends of justice."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are poor,

landless persons/labours who have constructed their separate Kaccha house

in Village Paloud, Tahsil Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur. They and their

families are residing there for approximately 40 years. He further submits

that Respondent No. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority

(NRDA), issued notices to each petitioners on 16.01.2026 and 30.01.2026,

respectively, (Annexure-P/1) to vacate the subject land. Although the

petitioners submitted representations on 20.01.2026 (Annexure-P/4)

requesting alternative arrangements, but same are remain pending till date.

Counsel further states that the petitioners are willing to file fresh

applications/representations before Respondent No. 2 seeking rehabilitation

or grant of alternative residential house and compensation for the demolition

of their house/property. Hence, he prays that the present petitions be

disposed of at this stage, granting the petitioners liberty to file fresh

applications before Respondent No.2 for the redressal of above grievances

and Respondent No.2 be directed to decide the same within a stipulated

time-frame and that, in the meantime, the petitioners be granted interim

protection from eviction.

4. In response, learned counsel for respondents conjointly submit that if

petitioners will move applications before the Authority for

rehabilitation/alternative arrangement of house etc., their applications will

be decided in accordance with law.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal

Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Ors {MANU/SC/0051/1997},

has observed the constitutional duty of the State in cases involving

encroachment. The relevant portion of the afore-cited judgment is

reproduced hereunder:-

13....It would, therefore, be clear that though no person has a right to encroach and erect structures or otherwise on footpath, pavement or public streets or any other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose, the State has the Constitutional duty to provide adequate facilities and opportunities by distributing its wealth and resources for settlement of life and erection of shelter over their heads to make the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful..."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re: T.N. Godavarman

Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Ors.{MANU/SC/0762/2025}, while

dealing with issue of right to shelter referred the case of Chameli Singh and

Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. MANU/SC/0286/1996: (1996) 2 SCC 549, in

which it has been held as under:-

"8....Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc..."

8. Reverting back to the present case, it is apt to note here that from perusal of

brochure (Annexure-P/2) issued by the Naya Raipur Development Authority,

it appears that various provisions and schemes have been contemplated for

rehabilitation of landless persons which has also been approved by the

empowered committee in meeting dated 10.09.2008. The contents of said

meeting (mentioned in Page No.26 of Writ Petition) are reproduced

hereunder:-

"सशक्त समिति की बैठक दिनांक 10.09.2008 का एजेंडा क.-3 कंडिका-5 में संशोधन कर प्रत्येक परिवार-जिसके पास आवास अथवा आवासीय भूखंड उपलब्ध न हो, को 1200 वर्गफुट का आवासीय भूखंड उपलब्ध कराने के प्रावधान को समाप्त किया जावे। यह निर्णय लिया गया कि मकान के बदले मकान योजना के तहत राखी की आबादी भूमि में स्थित आवासों के मामले में नया राखी में 2000 वर्गफुट के भूखंड पर निर्मित मकानों के अंतर्गत कच्चा आवास के मामले में 400 वर्गफुट के निर्मित मकानों के स्थान पर 600 वर्गफुट, अर्धपक्का आवास के मामले में 600 वर्गफुट के स्थान पर 800 वर्गफुट एवं पक्का आवास के मामले में 800 वर्गफुट के स्थान पर 1000 वर्गफुट का पक्का मकान विस्थापितों को देने का प्रावधान किया जावे।"

9. Moreover, counsel for Respondent No. 2 submits that in order dated

20.12.2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur Development

Authority, New Raipur (CG), it has been mentioned that the Authority

provides Economically Weaker Section (E.W.S.) housing to individuals who

have constructed houses by encroaching upon government land.

10. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited

above, and further considering the scheme/brochure issued by Respondent

No.2 (Annexure-P/2) and submission of respondent No.2 with regard to

order dated 20.12.2017, this Court, in view of the limited prayer made by

counsel for the petitioners, hereby dispose of these writ petition reserving

liberty in favor of the each petitioners to file application before Respondent

No.2-NRDA for the redressal of their grievances regarding rehabilitation or