RAMAKRISHNA VIVEKANANDA MISSION vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
1
CGHC010312462021 2026:CGHC:46844
NAFR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
Digitally signed
by VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4845 of 2021
Order Reserved on 01.10.2026
Order Delivered on 05.11.2026
1 - Ramkrishna Vivekanand Mission A Society Incorporated And
Registered Under, Societies Registration Act 1973, Registered In
16.09.2003, Raigarh Through Its Secretary, Old Commerce
College Building, Handi Chowk, Raigarh, Through Assistant
Secretary, Swami Sukhadananda, Aged About 64 Years,
Ramkrishna Vivekananda Mission, Old Commerce College, Handi
Chowk, Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through Secretary Housing and
Environment, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
.
2 - Collector, Raigarh, Collectorate Premises, Raigarh,
3 - Sub Divisional Officer Cum Rent Controlling Officer, Raigarh,
District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 2126 of 2022
1 - Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission A Society Incorporated And
Registered Under, Societies Registration Act 1973, Registered In
16.09.2003, Raigarh Through Its Secretary, Old Commerce
College Building, Handi Chowk, Raigarh, Through Assistnt
Secretary, Swami Sukhadananda, Aged About 64 Years,
Ramkrishna Vivekananda Mission, Old Commerce College, Handi
Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Housing And
Environment, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Collector Raigarh, Collectorate Premises, Raigarh
3 - Rent Controlling Authority Cum Sub-Divisional Officer Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Karodimal Charity Trust Raigarh, Through Its Secretary,
Karodimal Charity Trust, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner :- Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate
For State :- Mrs. Akansha Verma Dhabedkar, P.L.
For Respondent No.4 :- Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate
in WPC No.2126/2022
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB-Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
CAV Order
1. Both the writ petitions raise identical grievances, as raised by
the petitioner, Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission.
Accordingly, vide order dated 25.09.2026, both the matters
were directed to be listed for analogous hearing.
Consequently, both the writ petitions were heard together and
are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are registered
societies under the Indian Societies Registration Act, having
their presence across the country for furtherance of the
objectives for which they were established. In furtherance of
their respective objectives, the petitioner societies have also
obtained registration in the State of Chhattisgarh for running
a school and an orphanage at Raigarh and have been issued
certificates of registration in that regard. For the purposes of
the present writ petitions, the petitioner societies are
represented through their Assistant Secretary, Swami
Sukhadananda, who has been duly authorized by the
respective societies and their Secretary to represent them
before this Court in relation to the subject matter of the
present proceedings.
4
3. The respondents are the State of Chhattisgarh and its
authorities and, being public authorities, are amenable to the
writ jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent No. 3 is the Sub-
Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controlling Authority, District
Raigarh. Though Respondent No. 3 is not the State in its
strict sense, the said authority is a public officer exercising
statutory powers and functions under the Chhattisgarh Rent
Control Authorities Act, 2011, and the Rules framed
thereunder, and is, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction
of this Court in the discharge of such statutory functions. n
W.P.(C) No. 2126 of 2022, Respondent No. 4 is a trust that
lodged a complaint before Respondent No. 3, alleging that
the petitioner was using the subject premises for purposes
other than those for which the same had been allotted and
seeking recovery of vacant possession of the subject
property.
4. The common facts giving rise to both the writ petitions are
that the petitioner society, namely, Ramakrishna Vivekananda
Mission, Raigarh, registered under the Chhattisgarh Societies
Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, is engaged in providing
education to orphan children, children below the poverty line
and those belonging to economically weaker sections of
society. Pursuant to its application seeking accommodation
5
for carrying out its charitable and educational activities, the
State Government allotted the land and building situated at
Handi Chowk, Raigarh, to the petitioner society vide
allotment order dated 04.02.2004, and possession thereof
was handed over to it. The subject property had earlier
vested in the State Government with effect from 01.10.1986,
and the claim of Kirodimal Charity Trust concerning the said
property had been the subject matter of W.P. No. 6098/1998,
which was dismissed by this Court on 04.05.2018. The
petitioner society thereafter undertook necessary repairs to
the building with the permission of the competent authority
and obtained permission from the Education Department to
run a school under the name and style of Sharda Shishu
Vihar, with such permission being renewed from time to time.
Subsequently, on a complaint alleging unauthorized use of
the premises contrary to the purpose for which it had been
allotted, Respondent No. 3, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-
Rent Controlling Authority, issued a show-cause notice dated
15.09.2021 to the petitioner society, to which the petitioner
submitted its reply on 20.09.2021. However, Respondent No.
3, vide order dated 30.09.2021 bearing No. 3615/AVA/2021,
cancelled the allotment of the subject premises. Challenging
the said notice and cancellation order, the petitioner
6
approached this Court by way of writ proceedings, wherein
an interim order directing maintenance of status quo was
passed on 07.12.2021. In W.P.(C) No. 2126 of 2022,
Kirodimal Charity Trust, which had lodged a complaint before
Respondent No. 3 seeking eviction of the petitioner society
and recovery of vacant possession of the subject premises,
has also been impleaded as Respondent No. 4.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned action of the Rent Controlling
Authority, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions
seeking various reliefs. Since the reliefs prayed for in both
the writ petitions are not identical, the same are reproduced
separately hereunder for the sake of convenience and proper
appreciation of the respective claims.
WPC No. 4845/2021
“10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to call for the entire record pertaining to the
case of the petitioner.
10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set-aside the impugned order dated
30.09.2021 and notice dated 15.09.2021
passed/issued by respondent no.3;
10.3. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate direction thereby
directing respondent to Injunct and not to
7
interfere with the premises leased out to
petitioner otherwise than due course of law;
10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
may deems fit and proper may also be awarded
to the petitioner including the cost of the
petition.”
WPC No. 2126/2022
“10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to call for the entire record pertaining
to the case of the petitioner.
10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to set aside entire proceeding arising out of
complaint preferred by respondent no.4 and
registered by respondent no.3 as case no.
34/A-90(7)/2021-22 (including order sheets
ANNEXURE-P/1);
10.3. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to issue appropriate direction thereby
directing respondent to Injunct and not to
interfere with the premises leased out to
petitioner otherwise than due course of law;
10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court
may deems fit and proper may also be
awarded to the petitioner including the cost of
the petition.”
6. Mr. Harsh Dave, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr.
Khulesh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would
8
submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controlling
Authority (SDO-cum-RCA) has no authority in law to issue
the show-cause notice or pass the impugned order dated
30.09.2021 cancelling the allotment of the subject premises
on the ground of alleged violation of the conditions of
allotment. He would submit that, if the allotment was subject
to certain conditions and any such condition was alleged to
have been violated, it was incumbent upon the aggrieved
party having a legal interest in the property to initiate
appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In the
present case, no complaint or application seeking eviction
was filed by the competent party before the Rent Controlling
Authority prior to initiation of the impugned proceedings. It is
contended that the dispute, if any, concerning the alleged
violation of the conditions of allotment was essentially
between the parties having rights and obligations in respect
of the subject premises, and the Rent Controlling Authority
could not have initiated proceedings suo motu in the absence
of any complaint or application as contemplated under the
applicable law.
7. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No. 4,
namely, Kirodimal Charity Trust, having claimed rights in
respect of the subject property, was required to institute
9
appropriate proceedings for eviction, if so advised, in
accordance with law. However, instead of following the
prescribed procedure, the Rent Controlling Authority
proceeded against the petitioner society on its own initiative
and passed the impugned order without following the due
process of law. He would also submit that, in the earlier round
of litigation concerning the subject property, documents had
been placed on record before this Court indicating that the
premises had been allotted to the petitioner society for
running a school. The respondents cannot now take a
contrary stand regarding the purpose for which the premises
were allotted. The petitioner society has been running a
school for imparting education to orphan children and
children belonging to economically weaker sections of
society, in furtherance of its charitable objectives.
8. Learned counsel would lastly submit that the impugned
action has been taken without adherence to the procedure
established by law and without any valid complaint or
application having been instituted by Respondent No. 4
before the Rent Controlling Authority. According to him, the
proceedings initiated by the SDO-cum-RCA are without
jurisdiction and constitute an arbitrary exercise of power with
the object of evicting the petitioner society from the subject
10
premises by circumventing the procedure prescribed by law.
He, therefore, submits that the impugned show-cause notice
and the order dated 30.09.2021 deserve to be quashed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4,
Kirodimal Charity Trust, Raigarh, would submit that the
present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner society
challenging the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 3,
the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controlling Authority,
Raigarh, in Case No. 34/A-90(7)/2021-22, in respect of the
land and building situated at Handi Chowk, Raigarh. The
petitioner claims its occupation over the subject premises on
the basis of the allotment order dated 04.02.2004 (Annexure
P/4). Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent
No. 4 filed an application dated 01.10.2021 before
Respondent No. 3, raising a grievance regarding the
petitioner’s occupation of the subject premises and seeking
appropriate action in accordance with law (Annexure P/14),
pursuant to which the proceedings in question were
registered. Accordingly, the contention that the proceedings
were initiated suo motu , without any complaint or application,
is misconceived.
10. Learned counsel would next submit that the allotment order
dated 04.02.2004 was issued to the petitioner society
11
specifically for office use for a temporary period and that the
petitioner, having violated the conditions stipulated therein,
rendered itself liable to appropriate action in accordance with
law. He would contend that the subject property was
originally allotted to Respondent No. 4 Trust by the State
Government in the year 1952, and the said allotment
remained valid and effective until 31.03.1992, as reflected in
the documents filed as Annexure R/4-1. Thereafter, an
application seeking renewal of the lease was submitted
before the Collector, Raigarh, on 25.03.1992, followed by a
subsequent application dated 12.12.2019. The lease in
favour of Respondent No. 4 Trust was subsequently renewed
on 01.04.2022 and is stated to remain valid until 31.03.2052.
11. Learned counsel would further submit that the disputed
premises had earlier been handed over to Parumal
Dhananiya Memorial Society on 30.09.1986 for running an
Arts and Commerce College, and that the State Government
subsequently took over the property pursuant to an
agreement. He would also refer to Annexure R/4-4,
containing a resolution for handing over the subject property
back to Respondent No. 4 Trust. On the strength of the
aforesaid documents and the subsisting lease in its favour,
Respondent No. 4 claims to be the landlord in respect of the
12
subject premises and contends that it is competent to
maintain a complaint before the Rent Controlling Authority
under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, and to seek
eviction of the petitioner society through the procedure
prescribed by law.
12. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the
complaint/application filed by Respondent No. 4 was
maintainable, the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 3
were not without jurisdiction merely because they followed a
complaint, and the impugned action was taken on account of
the alleged violation of the conditions of allotment by the
petitioner society. He accordingly submits that the impugned
proceedings and the order dated 30.09.2021 do not warrant
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
and that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
15. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the subject
property was originally leased by the State Government in
favour of Respondent No. 4, Kirodimal Charity Trust, in the
13
year 1952. The Trust claims that the lease was subsequently
renewed and that its validity was extended up to 31.03.2052.
It is also borne out from the material available on record that
the subject premises were subsequently made available to
the petitioner society, which is running a school therein for
orphan children and children belonging to economically
weaker sections of society. The petitioner society has
obtained the requisite permissions from the competent
authorities, including the District Education Officer, Raigarh,
for running the school under the name and style of Sharda
Shishu Vihar . The record further indicates that the concerned
authorities were aware of the use of the premises for
educational purposes.
16. It is also relevant to note that the dispute concerning the
subject property had earlier been considered by this Court in
W.P. No. 6098 of 1998, which was dismissed on 04.05.2018.
The petitioner society was also a party to the said
proceedings. The dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition,
however, does not dispense with the requirement that any
action seeking eviction of the petitioner society or
cancellation of its occupation must be taken by the
competent authority in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law.
14
17. The allotment order dated 04.02.2004, pursuant to which the
petitioner society came into possession of the subject
premises, and the permissions granted by the competent
authorities for running the school are relevant circumstances
that were required to be duly considered before taking any
adverse action against the petitioner society. Even assuming
that any condition of allotment had been violated, such
alleged violation could not, by itself, justify the passing of an
order of eviction without following the procedure prescribed
by the applicable law. The authority concerned was required
to identify its statutory competence and adhere to the
procedure governing the proposed action, including the
principles of natural justice.
18. The aforesaid principle finds support from the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Babaria & Anr. v. State
of Gujarat & Ors. , (2014) 3 SCC 502 , wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court reiterated that where a statute prescribes a
particular procedure for exercise of statutory power, the
authority is required to act strictly in accordance with such
procedure and cannot adopt a different course. The Court
emphasized that statutory powers must be exercised within
the limits prescribed by the legislature and that it is not
15
merely the end but also the means adopted for achieving
such end which must conform to the statutory scheme.
19. In the present case, the impugned action culminated in the
order dated 30.09.2021 cancelling the allotment of the
subject premises. The material placed on record does not
establish that the impugned action was preceded by
proceedings conducted in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
The mere issuance of a show-cause notice dated 15.09.2021
and submission of a reply by the petitioner society on
20.09.2021 would not, by themselves, establish compliance
with the statutory procedure applicable to the proposed
action. Where the statute prescribes a particular procedure
for seeking eviction, the competent authority is required to act
within the limits of its jurisdiction and in conformity with such
procedure.
20. The aforesaid principle is fortified by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar
Council of Kerala & Ors. , (1999) 3 SCC 422 , wherein it has
been held that where the manner of doing a particular act is
prescribed under a statute, the act must be performed in that
manner alone and not otherwise. The said principle squarely
applies to the exercise of statutory jurisdiction by the Rent
16
Controlling Authority. Consequently, in the absence of
adherence to the procedure prescribed under the applicable
statutory framework, the impugned proceedings cannot be
sustained in law.
21. Another significant aspect of the matter is that the allotment
order dated 04.02.2004 was issued by the authority
concerned in relation to the subject premises. Having regard
to the nature of the impugned proceedings and the relief
sought against the petitioner society, the authority could not
proceed to adjudicate the alleged violation and order eviction
without establishing its competence to do so under the
applicable law. The principle that no person can be a judge in
his own cause is a well-settled facet of the rule against bias.
Accordingly, where the authority that issued the allotment
itself proceeds to determine the alleged breach and cancel
the allotment, the legality of such action must be examined
with due regard to the statutory framework, the nature of the
power exercised and the requirement of an impartial
decision-making process.
22. Another significant aspect of the matter is that the allotment
order dated 04.02.2004 was issued by the competent
authority in favour of the petitioner society. The subsequent
action seeking cancellation of such allotment was required to
17
be undertaken by an authority having specific statutory
competence in that regard. It is not merely the existence of
an alleged violation of the conditions of allotment which
confers jurisdiction upon an authority; rather, the authority
must demonstrate that the power exercised by it is traceable
to the applicable statutory provisions. In this regard, it would
be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
v. Vivek V. Gawde & Ors. , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3722 ,
wherein the Supreme Court examined the nature of quasi-
judicial proceedings undertaken by statutory authorities in
eviction matters and emphasized the importance of exercise
of jurisdiction in accordance with the statutory framework.
23. It is, therefore, evident that any alleged breach of the
conditions of allotment could be acted upon only by following
the procedure prescribed by law and by the authority
competent to initiate and decide such proceedings. If
Respondent No. 4 claims a right to recover possession of the
subject premises, it is open to it to pursue the remedy
available under the applicable law before the competent
authority. However, such a claim cannot validate proceedings
or an order that have been initiated or passed without
adherence to the procedure prescribed by law. The impugned
18
proceedings, culminating in the order dated 30.09.2021,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the writ petitions
deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated
by Respondent No. 3, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent
Controlling Authority, Raigarh, in Case No. 34/A-90(7)/2021-
22, and the consequential order dated 30.09.2021 bearing
No. 3615/AVA/2021, are hereby quashed.
25. It is, however, clarified that this order shall not preclude the
competent authority from initiating or proceeding with
appropriate action, if so warranted, strictly in accordance with
the applicable law and after following the prescribed
procedure and the principles of natural justice. Likewise,
Respondent No. 4 shall be at liberty to avail itself of such
remedy as may be available to it in law before the competent
forum.
26. Both the writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.
27. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha