1 - Nand Kumar Yadav S/o Dasru Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward v. 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPC No. 2353 of 2025 1 - Nand Kumar Yadav S/o Dasru Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 50 Borsi Bhata, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 2 - The Livestock Development Department Through Its Secretary, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 3 - The Collector District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Municipal Corporation Of Durg Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Market Officer Municipal Corporation, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 2 WPC No. 2360 of 2025 1 - Kanha Ram Yadav S/o Chhablu Ram Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 50, Borsi Bhata, District Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002. 2 - The Livestock Development Department, Through Its Secretary Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002. 3 - The Collector, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Municipal Corporation Of Durg Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Market Officer, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2362 of 2025 1 - Budhu Yadav S/o Munishram Yadav Aged About 64 Years R/o Ward No. 50 Borsi Bhata, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 3 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002. 2 - The Livestock Development Department, Through Its Secretary Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002. 3 - The Collector, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Municipal Corporation Of Durg, Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Market Officer, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2367 of 2025 1 - Sat Kumar Yadav S/o Chhabiram Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 50 Borsi Bhata, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002. 2 - The Livestock Development Department Through Its Secretary, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 492002. 4 3 - The Collector District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintendent Of Police District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Municipal Corporation Of Durg Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Market Officer Municipal Corporation Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... Respondent(s)
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioners :- Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate For State :- Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 08.05.2025 1. Heard Shalvik Tiwari, Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. appearing for the State. 2. Since similar and identical issue is involved in all the writ petitions, as such, they are being clubbed together, heard
Decision
together and disposed of by this common order. This order will adjudicate the entire bunch of the writ petitions. 3. In the present petitions, the petitioners are seeking direction on Respondents to provide adequate amenities for running of dairy under Gokul Nagar Settlement Scheme (Gokul Nagar Vyvasthapan Yojana) at Durg and till the same is not available the 5 Petitioners’ dairy may not be shifted from the present premises. Hence the present writ petitions. 4. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in all the writ petitions are same and one with certain variations, however, in order to adjudicate these petitions, WPC No. 2353/2025 (Nand Kumar Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) has been taken as lead petition for deciding the issues involved in these cases. The reliefs sought in the said petition are quoted hereinbelow:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may call for records from the respondents. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondent authority concerned not to take any coercive action for removal of the Petitioner's dairy and cattle from their existing site at Ward no. 50, Borsi Bhata, District Durg, until such time that the proposed relocation site at Gokul Nagar is adequately equipped with the necessary basic amenities for dairy operation, including but not limited to clean water, electricity, shelter, sanitation, cattle sheds, and fodder supply. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may set aside the removal notice dated 06.02.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 6. 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondents to consider and decide the Petitioner's representations dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-4) by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 10.5. The Hon'ble Court may grant cost of 6 petition to the Petitioner. 10.6. The Hon'ble Court may grant any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 5. The petitioners in all these writ petitions have approached this Court while seeking interference under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Facts of the cases are that the Petitioners have been running dairy in Borsi Bhata, District Durg, and also rearing livestock for earning a livelihood. In WP(C) 514 of 2025, this Hon'ble Court directed Respondent No. 5 to address the grievance regarding dairies in residential areas and take appropriate steps after giving all affected parties an opportunity to be heard. In compliance with the order dated 27.01.2025 of this Hon'ble Court, Respondents No. 5 and 6 issued a notice to the Petitioners, instructing the removal of the dairies, failing which it would be removed by Respondents No. 5 and 6. The Petitioners’ dairies are to be relocated under the Gokul Nagar Settlement Scheme (Gokul Nagar Vyvasthapan Yojana) at Gokul Nagar, Durg. However, the said premises lack the necessary amenities required for running a dairy, and shifting the cattle to Gokul Nagar in its current condition would endanger the life of the cattle and adversely affect the Petitioner’s livelihood. The Petitioners made representations to Respondent No. 5, explaining the hardships involved for both the cattle and the Petitioners if relocation to Gokul Nagar is carried 7 out in its current neglected state. However, Respondent No. 5 has, to date, failed to ensure the amenities necessary for running dairies at Gokul Nagar, while continuing to threaten the removal of the Petitioners’ existing dairy. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that that their fundamental rights, including the right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g) and the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, are being threatened by the actions of Respondent No. 5. The Petitioners have been running dairies and rearing livestock on their own land in Borsi Bhata, District Durg, for over 20 years. Despite this, Respondent No. 5 is attempting to dismantle the dairies without providing adequate alternate arrangements or the necessary infrastructure at the proposed resettlement site, Gokul Nagar, which lacks essential amenities for the proper care of the cattle. The Petitioners’ representations highlighting these concerns have been ignored, and no opportunity for a fair hearing was provided before the eviction notice was issued. This arbitrary and unreasonable action, without proper consideration of the Petitioners’ rights and the welfare of the cattle, amounts to a violation of their constitutional rights. The Petitioners request that the Hon'ble Court intervene and direct the Respondents to ensure the provision of adequate facilities at the resettlement site before any removal of the dairy takes place. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the Respondents, in compliance with the directions issued by this 8 Hon'ble Court in WP(C) 514 of 2025, are duty-bound to ensure the orderly relocation of the Petitioners’ dairy from the residential area to the designated resettlement site, Gokul Nagar. He submits that the Respondents have provided the Petitioners with sufficient notice regarding the removal of the dairy, in accordance with the applicable regulations and the Court's directions. It is stated that the relocation is part of a larger urban planning initiative aimed at decongesting residential areas and improving living conditions for the community. The Petitionerd, despite being duly informed, have failed to raise the issue of inadequate infrastructure in a timely manner, and the representations made by the Petitioners have been duly reviewed but do not warrant a delay in the relocation process. He further submits that the removal of the dairy is being done within the legal framework and does not infringe upon the Petitioners’ fundamental rights, as the relocation is a legitimate exercise of the Respondents’ powers in furtherance of public welfare. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the documents appended to the writ petitions. 10. Upon perusal of the record, the pleadings in the petition, and the documents submitted by the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners were conducting dairy operations in Ward No. 50, Borsi Bhata, District Durg. However, the State Government, as the respondent authority, has proposed shifting the dairy business 9 to Gokulnagar, Bhilai, an area with fewer amenities. It would be difficult for the petitioners to relocate to a place with inadequate amenities. Additionally, it would be hazardous for the cattle to live in such conditions, and it would also result in significant losses for the petitioners, as they would not be able to operate their business smoothly. 11. In the aforesaid context of the case, the respondent authorities, especially the Municipal Corporation of Durg, are directed to consider the petitioners' case and ensure that, before shifting the petitioners and their cattle to Gokulnagar, the area is equipped with the necessary amenities, including water supply, sanitation, and cleanliness, so that the cattle, especially cows and buffaloes, can be shifted there. This exercise should be completed within a period of 60 days. 12. However, until the petitioners' representation is considered, the respondents should not take any coercive steps against the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha