Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Eviction Of 10 Tribal Families From Dam-Risk Zone After Seepage Posed Imminent Failure Risk

The petitioners, members of Scheduled Tribes, claimed long-standing residence near Tailing Dam No. 1 at Badebacheli.

After technical assessments reportedly identified seepage and a risk of dam failure, the authorities initiated proceedings under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and ordered their eviction.

Their dwellings were demolished on 14 June 2026.

The petitioners challenged the eviction order dated 4 June 2026 and demolition memo dated 13 June 2026, seeking shelter, rehabilitation and compensation.

The State said temporary accommodation had been arranged and compensation assessed; the Court was also informed that NMDC quarters had been allotted temporarily to affected families.

Section 152 of the BNSS empowers the competent authority to take preventive action against public nuisance or danger to public safety; the Court stated that, where an imminent threat to human life is established, evacuation may lawfully be ordered to neutralise the danger.

The Court also applied the principle that unauthorised occupation of reserved forest land, without title, lease or a recognised right under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, does not by itself create an enforceable right to resist eviction or demand permanent rehabilitation.

Section 65 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 permits requisition of resources or premises for specified emergency purposes, subject to the statutory limits; the Court noted that such requisition must be made by a competent or duly authorised authority and left questions concerning Sections 65, 66 and 69 open.

The Court accepted that the technical assessment identified active seepage at the dam and a risk of catastrophic failure during the monsoon.

In those circumstances, it held that the authorities could not remain inactive and that evacuation under Section 152 of the BNSS was not, on the record, arbitrary or unlawful.

Because the petitioners had no established title, leasehold or recognised forest right, their long-standing occupation did not entitle them to resist evacuation or claim permanent alternative land as of right.

The Court treated the NMDC accommodation as temporary humanitarian relief, not as a source of permanent possession or tenancy.

It did not, however, determine whether the requisition orders complied with the Disaster Management Act or whether the issuing authority had the necessary jurisdiction; those questions were expressly left open.

It nevertheless directed the authorities to provide medical assistance, health monitoring and nutritional support to pregnant women and occupants in temporary shelters; to ensure that displaced families were not removed from their humanitarian accommodation before 15 October 2026, after which they were to vacate the NMDC accommodation; and to disburse the outstanding assessed compensation to eligible oustees after verification.

The validity and authority for the requisition of NMDC premises remained open for appropriate proceedings.