Eviction notices lacking land identification and specific encroachment details violate due process and are unsustainable.

The petitioners, residents of the BPL category, challenged eviction notices dated 15.02.2021 issued by the Chief Municipal Officer (Respondent No. 5) and notices dated 09.02.2021 issued by the Naib Tahsildar (Respondent No. 3) regarding alleged encroachment on the "med" (embankment) of Dadiya Talab in Kanker.

The petitioners claimed long-term possession through succession, payment of property taxes, and electricity connections.

The respondents contended the land was Nazool (Government) land required for pond beautification and that the petitioners lacked valid title.

Despite the 2021 notices, no coercive action had been taken against the petitioners for over five years.

1. Whether the impugned eviction notices are legally sustainable given the lack of specific details regarding the identified land and area of encroachment.

2. Whether the respondent authorities are required to follow fresh due process of law before initiating future eviction proceedings.

Section 223 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, which relates to the removal of obstructions and encroachments upon public streets or places.

The constitutional principle of procedural due process, requiring that any administrative action resulting in civil consequences—such as eviction—must be preceded by a clear, specific notice and a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Court observed that more than five years had elapsed since the issuance of the impugned notices without any coercive steps being taken by the State.

Upon perusal of the notices (Annexures P/3 and P/4), the Court found them fundamentally flawed as they failed to specify the identity of the land or the exact area of the alleged encroachment.

The Court reasoned that since the notices remained un-executed for an extended period and were vague in description, they were liable to be quashed to protect the petitioners' right to a fair hearing.

The High Court quashed the impugned notices dated 15.02.2021 and 09.02.2021, and granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh action, provided they issue a proper notice in accordance with the law and afford the petitioners a "full, fair and effective opportunity of hearing" before taking any adverse decision.