Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.07 10:31:06 +0530 2025:CGHC:11054 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1257 of 2025 1 - Bhanwar Sen Mogare S/o Late Puran Lal Mogare Aged About 52 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Barkha Kunwar W/o Jugesh Kunwar Aged About 32 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station - Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Kalka Hathgen D/o Mahipal Hathgen Aged About 45 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station - Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Neha Samudre W/o Umesh Samudre Aged About 30 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station - Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 5 - Reena Khudsa W/o Anil Khudsa Aged About 39 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 6 - Suraj Prasad Kunwar S/o Mithailal Kunwar Aged About 64 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- (C.G.) Distt. Torwa, Bilaspur, Bilaspur 7 - Sarita Chouhan W/o Ramuram Chouhan Aged About 59 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- (C.G.) Distt. Torwa, Bilaspur, Bilaspur 8 - Sarla Hathgen W/o Bhola Hathgen Aged About 55 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Krishna Bai W/o Gopal Aged About 65 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. (C.G.) Bilaspur 2 10 - Shivranjani Biriya W/o Ram Kumar Biriya Aged About 36 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- (C.G.) Distt. Torwa, Bilaspur, Bilaspur 11 - Soni Bai Karihar W/o Bhura Karihar Aged About 43 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 12 - Fulbai Yadav W/o Sukhdev Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 13 - Sushmita Sahu W/o Sunil Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 14 - Tara Soni W/o Pardeshi Soni Aged About 42 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 15 - Shashi Yadav W/o Ramsevak Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 16 - Reena Hathgen W/o Gopi Hathgen Aged About 43 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 17 - Savitri Pangare Alias Savitri Asret D/o Jagesar Pangare Aged About 50 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 47, Bilaspur (C.G.) Bilaspur, Police Station- Torwa, Distt. 18 - Madhuri Chouhan W/o Late Madan Chouhan Aged About 50 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- (C.G.) Distt. Torwa, Bilaspur, Bilaspur 19 - Kaushalya Baldev W/o Late Jogender Baldev Aged About 43 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- (C.G.) Distt. Torwa, Bilaspur, Bilaspur 20 - Savitri Sonkar W/o Babbu Sonkar Aged About 50 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 21 - Laxmi Das W/o Bapi Das Aged About 42 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 22 - Sunil Kumar Maiti S/o Gunadhar Maiti Aged About 55 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 23 - Pyari Bai Sahu W/o Guluram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 24 - Fulbai Mahettar W/o Late Babulal Aged About 70 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 25 - Munjo Berha @ Lata Bai W/o Vikas Berha Aged About 35 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- (C.G.) Distt. Torwa, Bilaspur, Bilaspur 26 - Anju Dakha W/o Raju Dakha Aged About 42 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 27 - Rani Barman W/o Amit Barman Aged About 43 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, (C.G.) Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. 28 - Sanno Bai D/o Jatan Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Housing And Urban (India) Affairs, Delhi New 2 - The Secretary Ministry of Railway, New Delhi (India) 3 - General Manager South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone, (C.G.) Bilaspur Distt. 4 - Divisional Railway Manager South Eastern Central Railway, (C.G.) Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Distt. 5 - Senior Sub-Divisional Engineer (Works) South Eastern Central (C.G.) Railway, Division, Bilaspur Bilaspur Distt. 6 - Senior Sub-Divisional Engineer (Awash) South Eastern Central (C.G.) Railway, Division, Bilaspur Bilaspur Distt. 7 - Assistant Divisional Engineer (Awas-Ii) South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 8 - Senior Section Engineer (Works/east) South Eastern Central (C.G.) Railway, Division, Bilaspur Bilaspur Distt. 9 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Director Urban Administration And Development, Indrawati (C.G.) Bhawan, Raipur, Raipur Naya Distt. 12 - Collector Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Executive Engineer Awas Shakha, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Respondent/Union of India For Respondent No.9 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, D.S.G.I. : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, A.A.G. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. The petitioners, who are the residents of Bapu Upnagar, Torwa, Bilaspur, preferred the instant writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ setting-aside order dated 13.07.2023 (Ann. P/9) to the extent that, the petitioners have been declared ineligible for allotment of house under the PMAY and houses 5 have been proposed to be allotted under the IHSDP scheme, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to allot the petitioners those houses which has been built under the PMAY scheme preferably in the short distance of petitioner's present houses, preferably in the PMAY houses constructed in the Hemu Nagar and Madhuban area of Bilaspur Town in pursuant to the survey report dated 29.05.2020 and in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 02.12.2019 passed in W.A. 103/2016, W.A. 328/2016 and W.A. 566/2016, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to not to evict the petitioner until the process of resettlement in terms of the above mentioned two prayers are completed in interest of justice 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Division Bench of this Court passed an order dated 02/12/2019 in WA No.103/2016 directing the respondent authorities to take steps to allot the accommodation, after following due process of law. He would further submit that in compliance of the said order, the Municipal Corporation 6 conducted the survey on 21/02/2020 in the occupied houses of the petitioners. According to him, though the survey was conducted under the scheme namely; Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (henceforth PMAY), but the accommodation offered to the petitioners under the scheme namely; Integrated Housing & Slum Development Programme (henceforth IHSDP). Learned counsel would submit that despite the fact that the petitioners are eligible for accommodation under the PMAY, the impugned communication has been issued observing that the petitioners are not entitled for the house under the PMAY, but they are offering the house under the IHSDP scheme and as such, the said action of the respondent authorities is in defiance of the order passed by the division Bench of this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, would submit that for compliance of the order of the division Bench of this Court, the petitioner No.1 herein has already preferred a petition before this Court bearing WPC No.4836/2022 and therefore, the present writ petition seeking the same relief is not maintainable. They would submit that if the grievance of the petitioner is that the order of the division Bench is not being complied with in its true perspective then the petitioner is having a remedy to file a contempt petition. They would also submit that in compliance of the order of the division Bench of this Court, proper survey was conducted and 7 on due consideration offering the accommodation to them under the IHSDP. Learned counsel would submit that this Court has directed the respondents to allot the available accommodation or accommodation to be constructed strictly in accordance with the seniority in the list and hence, they cannot ask the accommodation under a particular project. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 5. In fact, by the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking compliance of the order dated 02/12/2019 passed in WA No.103/2016. The petitioners are also questioning the letter by which the Corporation offered the accommodation under the IHSDP scheme. The main ground of the petitioners to question the offer of accommodation under the IHSDP scheme is that earlier the survey was conducted under the PMAY scheme, however, subsequently, without offering the houses under the PMAY the authorities, the houses are offering under the IHSDP. 6. The ground raised by the petitioner is not at all sustainable as the division Bench has not directed the respondents to provide the house to the petitioners under the PMAY scheme. For the sake of convenience, para 20 of order dated 2.12.2019 passed in WA No.103/2016 is quoted below : “In the facts and circumstances of the case, 8 particularly looking to the claim of Appellants that they are residing since long over the lands in question, Respondents No. 5 and 8 are directed to complete the procedure of verification of the credentials of the Appellants at the earliest and to prepare a list of eligible persons among the Appellants to be entitled for benefit under the housing scheme and to place them in the entire list of eligible persons prepared by Municipal Corporation as encroacher on Government lands including the lands of Railways and to allot the houses as and when available. We also direct that the Respondents No. 5 and 8 will not make any discrimination amongst encroachers of State Government land, land of Municipal Corporation or the land of Railways, but will allot the available accommodation or accommodation to be constructed strictly in accordance with the seniority in the list.” 7. As per the order of the Division Bench of this Court, the survey was conducted by the Corporation and considering the availability of house under the IHSDP, the authorities decided to allot the same to the petitioners. The petitioners have no right to claim rehabilitation under a particular scheme. It is for the State to decide how they will rehabilitate the petitioners and 9 what type of accommodation has to be allotted to the petitioners because the division Bench while deciding the writ appeal has directed the respondents to allot the available accommodation or accommodation to be constructed strictly in accordance with the seniority of the list and hence, the accommodation under the IHSDP is being offered to the petitioners and the petitioners cannot refused to accept the same. 8.
Decision
In view of foregoing, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep