DILIP vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
2026:CGHC:12857


2026:CGHC:12855
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 980 of 2026
Kachri Bai W/o Jagdish Patel Aged About 60 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 Nagar,
Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2. Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Development Authority, Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Paryavas Bhavan North Block Sector - 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents.
WITH
WPC No. 1097 of 2026
Brij Lal S/o Meghnath Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Paloud, Tahsil Mandir
Hasaud, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Petitioner.
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Housing And Environment
Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Naya Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Paryavas Bhavan, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents.

2
2026:CGHC:12857
WITH
WPC No. 1099 of 2026
Dilip S/o Brijlal Patel Aged About 35 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 Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Paryavas Bhavan Norht Block, Sector-19 Nava Raipur Atal Nagar
District Raipur (Cg)
--- Respondents.
(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioners : Mr. MPS Bhatia, Advocate
For Res No.1/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG and Mr. Shobhit
Mishra, respectively.
For Respondent No.2 Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )
Order on Board
18/03/2026
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

3
2026:CGHC:12857
of certiorari quashing the impugned order/Notice dated
30.01.2026 (Ann. P-1), 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, and their houses were
constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. He further submits that
Respondent No. 2 - Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority (NRDA),
issued notices to each petitioner on 30.01.2026 (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

4
2026:CGHC:12857
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

5
2026:CGHC:12857
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:-
" सशक्तसमिति कीबैठकदिनांक 10.09.2008 काएजेंडाक .-3 कंडिका -5 में
संशोधनकरप्रत्येकपरिवार - जिसके पासआवासअथवाआवासीयभूखंड
उपलब्धनहो , को 1200 वर्गफुटकाआवासीयभूखंडउपलब्धकरानेके
प्रावधानकोसमाप्तकियाजावे।यहनिर्णयलियागग याकि मकानकेबदलेमकान
योजनाकेतहतराखीकीआबादीभूमि मेंस्थि तआवासोंकेमामलेमेंनयाराखी
में 2000 वर्गफुटकेभूखंडपरनिर्मितमकानोंकेअंतर्गतकच्चाआवासकेमामले
में 400 600 , अर्धपक्काआवास
वर्गफुटकेनिर्मितमकानोंकेस्थानपर वर्गफुट
केमामलेमें 600 800
वर्गफुटकेस्थानपर वर्गफुटएवंपक्काआवासकेमामले
में 800 वर्गफुटकेस्थानपर 1000 वर्गफुटकापक्कामकानविस्थापितोंकोदेने
काप्रावधानकियाजावे। "
9. Moreover, counsel for Respondent No. 2 has filed an order dated 20.12.2017
(Annexure-R/1), passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Naya Raipur
Development Authority, New Raipur (CG) to demonstrate 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 the order dated 20.12.2017 (Annexure-R/1)

6
2026:CGHC:12857
submitted by Respondent No. 2, 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 alternative house arrangements and compensation. The
petitioners are directed to file such application within 15 days from today.
Upon receipt of such applications, Respondent No.2 is directed to decide the
same within a further period of 60 days, in accordance with the applicable
laws, rules, and schemes.
11. However, till the decision on such applications, no coercive steps shall be
taken against the petitioners, particularly with respect to their eviction from
their existing houses.
12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these writ petitions are
disposed of.
13. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
merits of the case.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Ajay