Chhattisgarh HC Quashes Cancellation Of Raigarh Mission’s School Premises Allotment, Says Eviction Must Follow Legal Procedure

The petitioner society occupied land and a building at Handi Chowk, Raigarh, under a State allotment dated 4 February 2004 and operated a school there with the relevant educational permissions

Respondent No. 4, Kirodimal Charity Trust, complained to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Rent Controlling Authority (SDO-cum-RCA), alleging that the premises were being used contrary to the allotment terms; the Trust claimed a subsisting lease over the property

After issuing a show-cause notice dated 15 September 2021 and receiving the society’s reply, the SDO-cum-RCA cancelled the allotment on 30 September 2021

The society challenged the notice, proceedings and cancellation order in two writ petitions, which the High Court heard and decided together

The Court referred to the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, and the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Authorities Act, 2011, as the statutory framework governing the Rent Controlling Authority and eviction proceedings; it identified no specific section as authorising the impugned cancellation

Statutory powers must be exercised by an authority with jurisdiction and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law; a prescribed statutory procedure cannot be replaced by another course.

The Court relied on Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502, on adherence to statutory limits and procedure

It also relied on Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, (1999) 3 SCC 422, for the rule that where legislation prescribes how an act is to be done, it must be done in that manner alone.

It also noted the requirement of an impartial decision-making process when examining the authority’s role in relation to the allotment it had issued

The allotment and the permissions to run a school were relevant circumstances that had to be considered before adverse action was taken

The Court held that a show-cause notice and reply, by themselves, did not establish compliance with the statutory procedure for eviction or cancellation

Nor did an alleged breach of allotment conditions establish the SDO-cum-RCA’s jurisdiction: the authority had to show that its power was traceable to the applicable law and act within that law’s procedure

The record did not establish that the cancellation proceedings met those requirements; the Trust’s asserted rights could instead be pursued before a competent forum under the applicable law

It left open the possibility of action by a competent authority in accordance with law and natural justice, and permitted Respondent No. 4 to pursue any remedy available before the competent forum

No order as to costs was made