1 - Litku Uraon S/o Shri Dinkar Uraon Aged About 58 Years R/o H.No.-77 v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department O
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2359 of 2025 1 - Litku Uraon S/o Shri Dinkar Uraon Aged About 58 Years R/o H.No.-77, Judiniya Para, Gaon - Balrampur, Tahsil - Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 2 - Vipin Ekka S/o Lidku Ekka Aged About 31 Years R/o Baigapara, Balrampur, Tahsil - Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Rohit Banjare S/o Tarachand Banjare Aged About 46 Years R/o Baigapara, Balrampur, Tahsil - Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer Shankargadh, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Shankargadh, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Abhishek K. Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 08/05/2025 Order on Board 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI “10.1 Hon'ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2. Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to respondent authority permit the petitioner to approach the Sub Divisional Officer Shankargadh, Distt - Balrampur- 2 Ramanujganj (C.G.) to file a statuary remedy of Appeal till date no coercive step should be taken against the petitioner. 10.3. Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court may deem fit in the fact s and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner No. 1 is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 850/1 (Old Khasra No. 441), measuring 2.023 hectares, situated in Village Balrampur, Tehsil Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. Petitioner No. 2 also owns a portion of land under Khasra No. 850/1 in the same area, and petitioner No. 3 owns 0.02 hectares of land under the same Khasra number. The lands in question are recorded in the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, and the petitioners have been paying all requisite taxes. Furthermore, their residential houses are situated on these lands. The petitioners have been in continuous possession of their respective lands since 1997. However, by way of a Gazette Notification dated 10.02.2023, the Government of Chhattisgarh declared certain lands in Village Vadrafnagar, including the lands of the petitioners, as Nazul land. Subsequent to the notification, some individuals applied for allotments (Patta) and purchased portions of the land, but the Government later discontinued the scheme. On 03.05.2025, without any written notice or adherence to due process, the Tehsildar orally directed the petitioners to vacate the premises by 04.05.2025, threatening demolition in default. Notably, in a related matter (Writ Petition No. WPC/2087/2025), this Hon'ble Court had directed the Tehsildar not to demolish structures for three days from 25.04.2025. Despite this, the respondent authorities proceeded with demolition of the house of the petitioners therein on 03.05.2025, which was a public holiday, in clear defiance of the order of the Court. 3 On the same day, the petitioners submitted a representation to the Tehsildar seeking reasonable time to approach the appropriate appellate authority. However, the application was refused, and the Tehsildar asserted that no further notice was necessary as all procedures had been completed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the subject land for several years, and the abrupt and arbitrary action by the respondents stems from local animosity, resulting in undue harassment of the petitioners. Such conduct is not only prejudicial but also contrary to the settled principles of law and equity. It is further submitted that the respondents have grossly violated the principles of natural justice by demolishing the property of the petitioners without issuing any prior written notice or granting an opportunity of hearing. The right to be heard before any adverse action is a cornerstone of fair procedure and is firmly embedded in constitutional jurisprudence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the impugned action is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, thus infringing the rights of the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The conduct of the respondents also amounts to a violation of Article 21, as the unauthorized demolition has deprived the petitioners of their right to shelter, life, and livelihood without due process. Moreover, the action appears to be tainted with mala fide intent and constitutes a colorable exercise of power, executed on a public holiday and in clear defiance of a subsisting Court order. This indicates that the respondents acted with extraneous considerations and personal bias. It is also submitted that the demolition would amount to illegal deprivation 4 of property in contravention of Article 300A of the Constitution, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. In the present case, no such lawful authority or procedure is being followed. In light of the above, the petitioners respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned action and grant adequate time to enable the petitioners to approach the SDO, Shankargadh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for availing the statutory remedy of appeal. 4. Learned State counsel, at the very outset, submits that the house of the petitioners have not been demolished and their fear of demolition is merely speculative, without any factual or legal basis. The petition is premature as no action has been initiated against the petitioners, and apprehensions arising from adjacent demolitions cannot justify writ relief. This anticipatory petition need not to be entertained under Article 226 based on vague fears without concrete evidence. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed as speculative and devoid of merit. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the record, it is evident that the grievance of the petitioners, at present, is based on the apprehension of future action, which has not materialized. No demolition has taken place as regards the property of the petitioners and no demolition notice appears to have been served. However, in the interest of justice, and considering the principles of natural justice, it is directed that in the event any proceedings for eviction or removal of the petitioners from the subject land are initiated in future, the concerned authorities shall issue a prior notice of at least seven (07) days to the petitioners, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and 5 public holidays. Thereafter, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to file their reply / representation, and only upon due consideration of the same, an order for removal or eviction, if so required under law, may be passed. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings, if initiated. 8.
Decision
With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE