BABLU KADTI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


CGHC010233312026 2026:CGHC:46386

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHYNA
AJAY
Digitally signed
by SHYNA
AJAY
Date:
2026.11.03
18:55:24
+0530
WPC No. 2993 of 2026
Reserved on 25.08.2026
Pronounced on 03.11 .2026
1 - Bablu Kadti S/o Somaru Kadti, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Labour
Hatment, Ward No. 09, Old Market, Badebacheli Dakshin Bastar, Distt-
Dantewada (C.G.)
2 - Mimichand Chouhan S/o Dukku Ram Chouhan, Aged About 31
Years R/o Ward No. 09, Badebacheli, Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada,
Distt- Dantewada (C.G.)
3 - Anil Kumar Kashyap S/o Chamru Kashyap, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Ward No. 01, Badebacheli, Dakshin Bastar, Dantewada, Bacheli,
Distt- Dantewada (C.G.)
4 - Saybo Sodhi S/o Podla Sodhi, Aged About 38 Years, House No. 11,
Labour Hatment, Ward No. 08, Badebacheli, Dakshin Bastar, Distt-
Dantewada (C.G.)
5 - Raimon Kumar Madkami S/o Late Ando Madkami, Aged About 36
Years, Labour Hatment, R/o Ward No. 09, Old Market Badebacheli
Distt- Dantewada (C.G.)

2
6 - Fulmati Sodi W/o Chaitram Sodi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Dole
Para, Jaunga, Dakshin Bastar Distt- Dantewada (C.G.)
7 - Vijjo Tati W/o Kari Ram Tati, Aged About 28 Years, R/o House No.
05, Ward No. 01 School Para, Matenar, Netapur, Dakshin Bastar Distt-
Dantewada (C.G.)
8 - Laxmi Kawasi D/o Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, Aged About 39 Years R/o
House No. 12, Ward No. 08, Badebacheli, Dakshin Bastar Distt-
Dantewada (C.G.)
9 - Shanti Vek C/o Sukhram Vek, Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No.
09, Badebacheli, Distt- Dantewada (C.G.)
10 - Bijmani Bhogami D/o Budru Bhogami, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Padapur, Ward No. 08, Badebacheli, Dakshin Bastar, Distt- Dantewada
(C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department,
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - District Collector Dantewada Distt- South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.)
3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Re), Sub Division Badebacheli, Distt- South
Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.)
4 – Tahsildar, Badebacheli, Distt- South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.)
5 - Divisional Forest Officer, Badebacheli, Distt- South Bastar,
Dantewada (C.G.)

3
6 - General Manager (Human Resource) N. M. D. C. Ltd. Bacheli, Tah-
Badebacheli Distt- Dantewada (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Waquar Rizvi, Advocate
For Respondents
:
Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. AG
1 to 5/State
:
For Respondent
:
Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Senior Advocate with
No.6
Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate
SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge the
impugned order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Re), Sub Division Badebacheli, District South Baster,
Dantewada (CG) {Respondent No. 3}, as well as the
consequential memo dated 13.06.2026 directing their eviction and
demolition of their residential premises. The petitioners contend
that they have resided on the land in question for over seven
decades and the impugned eviction order came to passed on the
basis of an assurance of compensation by Respondent No.6,
unbacked by any framed scheme of rehabilitation. In pursuance
thereof, on 14.06.2026 (Sunday), the respondents executed the
demolition under the provisions of Section 152 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS 2023”) and the

4
Indian Forest Act, 1927, leaving the petitioners homeless without
alternative shelter amidst the ongoing monsoon season.
2.
The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :
10.1 Direct the Respondents to provide immediate
temporary shelter, especially in view of the rainy
season, along with basic amenities.
10.2 Direct rehabilitation and resettlement of the
Petitioners within a fixed timeframe.
10.3 Direct assessment and payment of adequate
compensation.
10.4 Direct consideration of allotment of suitable
residential accommodation or land.
10.5 Direct production of the applicable rehabilitation
policy.
10.6 Pass any other relief protecting the rights of the
petitioners, in the interest of justice.
3. The factual matrix, borne from the pleadings on record, are that
the petitioners are members of the Scheduled Tribes, who, along
with their families, comprising aged dependents and minor
children, claim to have resided near Tailing Dam No.1,
Badebacheli, District South Bastar Dantewada, for about seven
decades. On 2.8.2025, Respondent No. 6 (General Manager
(Human Resources), NMDC Ltd., Bacheli) issued a letter to
Respondent No. 3 (Sub Divisional Officer {SDO}) and thereafter
addressed a letter dated 6.8.2025 to Respondent No. 2 (District
Collector). The communication recorded that while monsoon rains
had damaged the Bacheli Complex near Tailing Dam No. 01, no
loss of life or property had occurred. However, citing safety

5
concerns, the concerned authority requested the removal of the
petitioners, labelling them as unauthorized occupants. Acting upon
the said request, Respondent No. 3 directed the Tahsildar
(Respondent No. 4) by communications dated 30.09.2025 and
8.10.2025 to initiate steps for the eviction of the occupants. A spot
inspection and Panchnama were subsequently prepared by
Respondent No. 4 on 8.10.2025. Revenue proceedings (Case No.
20251016060028 Year 2024-25) were initiated by Respondent No.
4. However, vide order-sheet dated 10.11.2025, the proceedings
were dropped on the ground that since the land in question
pertained to the Forest Department, the revenue court lacked
jurisdiction. The matter did not rest there. On 30.4.2026,
Respondent No. 3 instituted fresh proceedings under Section 152
of the BNSS 2023, alleging public nuisance (Case No.
202602161500010 /Section-152/ 2025–26). Though notices were
issued and replies submitted, Respondent No. 3 proceeded to
pass the impugned order of eviction on 4.6.2026. This order
relied solely on an assurance of monetary compensation offered
by Respondent No. 6, omitting any provision for rehabilitation.
Ultimately, Respondent No. 3 issued a demolition memo dated
13.6.2026. On the next day (Sunday) i.e. 14.6.2026, the
administrative machinery moved to demolish the petitioners'
dwellings and forcibly evict them under Section 152 of BNSS 2023
as also under the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act,
leaving them unsheltered at the onset of the monsoon season.

6
4. Mr. Mohd. Waquar Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioners have been left homeless and
dispossessed, forced to endure the full rigor of the ongoing
monsoon season without basic shelter, safe drinking water or
sanitation facilities. The immediate physical exposure to harsh
weather conditions constitutes an active, irreparable hazard to the
life, safety and dignity of the petitioners and their dependent
families. He further submits that the Right to Life under Article 21
is not confined to mere physical existence, but guarantees the
right to live with human dignity, which intrinsically encompasses
the right to safe shelter. He also submits that demolishing
structures and dispossessing citizens solely on the basis of
unfulfilled administrative assurances, without prior operational
rehabilitation, is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. He further submits that under the
provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 {hereinafter
referred to as the Forest Rights Act”), no tribal or traditional forest
dweller can be evicted or displaced unless a complete
rehabilitation plan, offering equivalent replacement land and basic
public facilities is arranged for them in advance. However, the
Respondent authorities have acted in complete contravention of
these mandatory statutory safeguards. The dispossession
executed by Respondent No. 6 upon the assurance of
compensation fails to satisfy the touchstone of a fair, just and
reasonable procedure established by law . He also submits that

7
certain women petitioners are pregnant and the common
accommodation presently provided to them is not suitable
considering their medical condition. Upon complaints made by the
petitioners, SDO(R), Badebacheli, District Dantewada directed
NMDC to provide alternative residential accommodations to the
concerned petitioners from 14.6.2026 to 15.10.2026. He lastly
submits that the failure of the State and Respondent No. 6 to
provide immediate emergency relief or temporary shelter during
the ongoing monsoon constitutes a clear breach of their
constitutional duty.
5. Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the State submits that on
02.08.2025, a portion of Tailing Dam No. 01 situated at the
Badebacheli Complex of Respondent No. 6 (NMDC Ltd.)
collapsed. Technical evaluations conducted by Experts from the
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay revealed active
seepage of water mixed with fine sludge from the dam base,
confirming an imminent threat of further catastrophic structural
failure during the monsoon season. According to report, the
Experts from IIT Bombay explicitly advised for immediate
evacuation and relocation of residents downstream in the impact
zone to prevent severe loss of life and property. He further
submits that acting upon the urgent request of Respondent No. 6
and the technical recommendations of the Experts from IIT
Bombay, the State authorities initiated proceedings under Section
152 of the BNSS 2023. Keeping public safety as a priority, the
impugned order dated 04.06.2026 was passed to remove

8
unauthorized structures situated within the high-risk impact zone
at Village Padhapur. He further submits that the State took
proactive measures to shelter the displaced occupants. Displaced
families were initially provided temporary shelter at the
Community Hall of the Badebacheli Municipal Council and the
Mangal Bhavan of NMDC Bacheli Project. In view of the ongoing
monsoon season and the presence of vulnerable individuals,
including pregnant women, the State invoked Section 65 of the
Disaster Management Act, 2005 (in short “the Act, 2005”). He
further submits that vide orders dated 18.06.2026 and 19.06.2026,
11 residential quarters belonging to Respondent No. 6 (Type-1 DS
Quarter Nos. 3, 22, 25, 33, 35, 36, 45, 56, 74, 96, and 113) were
temporarily requisitioned and physical possession was duly
granted to the affected families. He submits that the petitioners
are unauthorized encroachers over Reserve Forest Land No.
1844 (Range & Tahsil Bacheli District South Bastar Dantewada),
having no legal title, leasehold or rights recognized under the
Forest Rights Act. Regardless of their status as encroachers, the
State Revenue Authorities evaluated the structural value of the
removed dwellings purely on humanitarian grounds. A total
compensation amount of Rs.34,20,493/- was assessed to be
disbursed by Respondent No. 6/NMDC, out of which four land
oustees have already accepted payment. He further submits that
since the petitioners occupied Reserve Forest Land without
statutory entitlement, no legal or enforceable right accrues in their
favor to demand permanent rehabilitation, resettlement or

9
alternative land allocation. The steps taken by the State
authorities under Section 152 of the BNSS, Section 65 of the Act,
2005 and the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act are
lawful, non-arbitrary and executed to safeguard public safety. He
lastly submits that the State authorities have acted well within the
parameters of law and public interest, therefore, the Petition is
liable to be dismissed in limine.
6. Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Topilal Bareth, Counsel for respondent No.6 (NMDC Ltd.),
submits that Respondent No. 6 does not challenge the evacuation
undertaken by the administration for public safety following
technical recommendations from the Experts of IIT Bombay
regarding Tailing Dam No. 1. Indeed, NMDC Ltd. had repeatedly
requested the District Administration to evacuate and relocate
persons residing in the vulnerable downstream area, posted
warning notices, deposited the revised compensation of
Rs.34,20,493/-, provided temporary shelter and food and
arranged rented accommodation for the displaced families on
humanitarian grounds. She submits that the core grievance of
Respondent No. 6 is directed against the subsequent orders
dated 18.06.2026 and 19.06.2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate (SDM), Bade Bacheli, directing the
allotment/requisition of five Type-I residential quarters belonging
to NMDC Ltd., Central Public Sector Enterprise, to the evicted
persons. Learned Senior Counsel contends that Section 152 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides

10
statutory jurisdiction solely for conditional orders removing public
nuisance or danger. It does not empower an Executive Magistrate
to requisition, administer or allot third-party private/corporate
property for permanent or semi-permanent residential
rehabilitation. She further submits that requisition under Section
65 of the Act, 2005 is permissible only when premises are
demonstrably needed for "rescue operations" by a written order of
requisition, accompanied by compensation under Section 66. The
SDM cannot convert a temporary rescue power into a general
power of residential allotment. Learned Senior Counsel submits
that the State has taken mutually destructive and contradictory
stands claiming on one hand that no disaster existed to attract
Section 65 during eviction, while simultaneously invoking Section
65 to justify the appropriation of premises of the NMDC Ltd. No
written delegation of power under Section 69 of the Act, 2005 from
the District Authority to the SDM has been produced or
established on record. In the absence of express statutory
delegation, the SDM lacked inherent jurisdiction to act under the
Act, 2005. Learned Senior Counsel submits that during the
pendency of these proceedings, the petitioners and their family
members forcibly broke open the locks and unlawfully entered the
NMDC quarters. She submits that an act of forcible trespass
cannot confer a legal right to possession nor can it cure the
jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders dated 18.06.2026 and
19.06.2026.

11
7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and
also perused the material available on record with utmost
circumspection.
8. At the outset, it is essential to bear in mind the paramount duty of
the State to safeguard human life. There can be no dispute with
the settled proposition that the State is under an obligation to
protect human life. In situations of adversity, the administrative
authorities are required to take prompt and effective measures in
accordance with law to avert impending disaster. The State
authorities cannot be expected to remain inactive when public
safety is threatened, irrespective of pending disputes over land
title or possession.
9.
Turning to the factual matrix, the main grievance raised by the
petitioners pertains to their eviction and the subsequent demolition
of their structures executed pursuant to the order dated
04.06.2026 passed under Section 152 of BNSS 2023 and the
provisions of the Indian Forest Act. While the petitioners claim
long-standing occupancy over the land in question and invoke
statutory protections under the Forest Rights Act, the record
shows that the property in dispute forms part of Reserve Forest
Land No. 1844 at Village Padapur, Range and Tehsil Bacheli
District South Bastar Dantewada. Further, no lease, title or
recognized forest right has been granted in favour of the
petitioners. It is trite law that unauthorized occupation over
Reserve Forest Land, in the absence of a formal title, valid

12
leasehold or a recognized right under Forest Rights Act, does not
confer any vested, indefeasible or legally enforceable right upon
the occupants to resist eviction or to demand, as a matter of right,
permanent rehabilitation or alternative allotment of land.
10. Furthermore, a perusal of the record shows that the subject
proceedings were initiated after serious apprehensions of
structural safety of Tailing Dam No. 1 of Respondent No. 6
(NMDC Ltd.). In the backdrop of such serious apprehensions,
technical evaluations were conducted by expert Engineers from
the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay. The report
revealed that there was active seepage of water mixed with fine
sludge at the dam base, posing an imminent risk of catastrophic
failure and loss of human life during the monsoon season.
Therefore, it became incumbent upon the State to order
immediate evacuation based on the technical assessment. In
response to such immediate safety concerns, proceedings were
initiated under Section 152 of BNSS 2023 and notices were
issued and accordingly impugned order dated 04.06.2026 was
passed.
11. Section 152 has been enacted to empower the competent
authority to take preventive measures in cases involving public
nuisance or danger to public safety. When facing an emergency
that poses an imminent threat to human safety, action taken under
Section 152 of the BNSS 2023 to neutralize public hazards and
direct immediate evacuation constitutes a lawful exercise of

13
statutory authority, free from arbitrariness and illegality. Public
safety and the preservation of human life must override individual
claims of unapproved occupancy. Even otherwise, the State
Administration and Respondent No. 6 have not acted with
callousness or disregard for basic human dignity. A sum of
Rs.34,20,493/- has already been assessed towards compensation
for the demolished dwellings, part of which has already been
accepted by affected occupants.
12. Admittedly, the State has invoked Section 65 of the Act, 2005 to
provide temporary shelter, basic amenities, and emergency
accommodation to the evicted families during the monsoon
period. Section 65(1) of the Act, 2005 empowers the competent
authority to use any resource, premises or vehicle for the purpose
of prompt response, rescue operations and purposes of transport
of resources in connection with rescue, rehabilitation and
reconstruction. Sub section (2) also provides that whenever any
resource, premises or vehicle is requisitioned under sub-section
(1), the period of such requisition shall not extend beyond the
period for which such resource, premises or vehicle is required for
any of the purposes mentioned in that sub-section. Thus, the
requisition of such property has to be within the contours of the
statutory provision. In the present case, the accommodation
arranged in the NMDC quarters is only temporary till the end of
the monsoon. Such temporary arrangement granted solely to
manage the immediate monsoon risk, does not grant them any
permanent legal right or ownership over residential quarters of

14
NMDC Ltd. (Respondent No. 6). The petitioners remain bound to
abide by lawful administrative arrangements made for temporary
relief without asserting any rights of adverse possession or
permanent tenancy over NMDC quarters.
13. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the essential legal
principle that a temporary requisition requires a valid order
passed by the competent authority or a duly authorised officer. A
bare perusal of the material on record is insufficient to
conclusively establish compliance with Section 65 of the Act,
2005. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the peculiar
circumstances of this case, this Court deems it premature to
adjudicate upon the legal validity of the acquisition orders on
merits at this stage. It is also clarified that nothing in this order
shall be construed as affirming either the legal validity of the
requisition or the competence of the issuing authority. All
questions regarding the jurisdiction and authority under Sections
65, 66 {payment of compensation} and 69 {Delegation of powers}
of the Act, 2005 are left open to be agitated in appropriate legal
proceedings, if occasion so arises.
14. Furthermore, on an earlier date of hearing i.e. 17.7.2026, this
Court had called for a report from the District Collector,
Dantewada and the Sub Divisional Officer, Badebacheli, regarding
the allegations that the petitioner(s) had forcibly broken and
opened the locks of the NMDC quarters. The report dated
27.07.2026 submitted by the concerned authorities shows that the

15
concerned petitioners entered and occupied the premises in
pursuance of the allotment orders dated 18.6.2026 and 19.6.2026
respectively, valid till 15.10.2026. In light of these administrative
orders, it would be unjustified to record a finding of illegal trespass
against the petitioners.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the
material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the decision to evacuate persons from an area facing an
imminent threat to life cannot, by itself, be characterised as
arbitrary or unreasonable. This Court finds no jurisdictional error
or illegality either in the impugned eviction order dated 04.06.2026
or the consequential demolition memo dated 13.06.2026,
warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
16. Consequently, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to
be dismissed.
17. Before parting with the matter, keeping in view the prevailing
monsoon season and the vulnerable condition of the displaced
occupants, particularly pregnant women, lactating mothers, elderly
persons and minor children, the State Authorities are directed to
ensure compliance with the following directions :
(i) Continuous medical assistance, essential
health monitoring and adequate nutritional
support shall be extended to all pregnant women
and occupants presently housed in temporary
shelters;

16
(ii) The displaced families shall not be
dispossessed from their humanitarian
accommodations till the conclusion of the ongoing
monsoon season i.e. till 15.10.2026, however,
after the expiry of the said period, they shall
vacate the accommodation of NMDC;
(iii) The remaining balance of the compensation
assessed by the Revenue Authorities shall be
disbursed to the remaining eligible oustees
expeditiously upon due verification of their
identity.
18. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Shyna Ajay