Grant of reasonable time to vacate encroached land on humanitarian grounds for public purpose projects.

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging notices dated 10.06.2026.

These notices, issued by the Chief Municipal Officer (Respondent No. 3), directed the petitioners to remove encroachments and vacate disputed land within three days.

The petitioners, who claimed to have resided in the houses for over thirty years, did not dispute the encroachment but sought an extension of six months to find alternative housing for their families and school-going children.

Respondent No. 3 submitted that the land was required for a school playground and for Independence Day celebrations.

1. Whether the three-day period granted under the eviction notice was reasonable and sufficient under the circumstances to allow for voluntary vacation of the premises.

2. Whether the court should exercise its discretionary powers to grant an extension of time for vacating the encroached land on humanitarian and sympathetic grounds.

The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While acknowledging that unauthorized occupants have no "legal or vested right" to continue possession, the court applied the principle of reasonableness in administrative actions and balanced public purpose requirements against humanitarian considerations.

The court relied on the doctrine of equity to provide a "short extension" of time without recognizing any permanent right, title, or interest in the property.

The court noted that the petitioners did not challenge the authority of the respondents to remove the encroachment or claim ownership; the grievance was limited to the "wholly unreasonable" timeframe of three days.

The court recognized the competing interests: the State's requirement of the land for a public-purpose school playground and upcoming national celebrations, versus the hardship faced by families and children residing there for decades.

Drawing on a concession made by the Chief Municipal Officer on humanitarian grounds, the court determined that the ends of justice would be met by granting an extension.

The court clarified that this indulgence was purely sympathetic and did not create any future "right or equity" for the petitioners.

It held that the petitioners are permitted to remain in occupation only up to 10.08.2026.

The court ordered the petitioners to voluntarily vacate by that date without further notice, failing which the respondents are authorized to use due process of law to remove the encroachment.

No further extensions of time shall be granted.