Longtime Occupants Who Took Bhilai Steel Plant Plots From Original Allottees In Breach Of Transfer Ban Have No Right To Stay: Chhattisgarh HC

The petitioners occupied plots on public premises belonging to the Bhilai Steel Plant, claiming through original allottees/licensees and relying on long possession, construction, and payment of rent or other dues.

The original allotment agreements prohibited transfer, subletting, or creation of a partnership.

Estate Officers had passed eviction and damages orders in several proceedings, which the petitioners sought to challenge or prevent from being executed, including on the ground that they had become unenforceable through delay.

In a connected contempt petition, I.A. Dhas alleged that his dispossession on 19 April 2022 breached an interim status quo order made on 8 April 2022; the respondents disputed having notice of that order before execution.

Sections 2(e) and 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 define “public premises” and “unauthorised occupation”; Sections 5 and 7 provide for eviction and recovery of rent or damages, while Section 9 provides a statutory appeal.

A person occupying public premises without authority, including through a transaction prohibited by the original allotment, cannot claim an enforceable right merely from possession, construction, or payment of charges.

In Board of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta v. Kalipada Bhakat, (2014) 10 SCC 573, the Supreme Court considered claims by persons deriving rights through an original occupant under the PP Act.

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. VITA, (2026) 3 SCC 427, affirmed the PP Act’s application to unauthorised occupation of public premises and its priority over conflicting rent-control protections.

The court also applied the principle that delay in executing an eviction order, without more, does not create a right in an unauthorised occupant.

Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience of a court order.

The petitioners’ claimed rights derived from the original allottees, but the allotment terms prohibited transfers, subletting, and partnerships; no independent authorisation from the Bhilai Steel Plant was shown.

Accordingly, long possession, construction, and payment of charges did not establish lawful authority to occupy the premises.

Nor did delay in execution confer a right to remain, particularly where the petitioners had not demonstrated a later grant of rights and the statutory orders had not been successfully challenged through the available appellate process.

The court found no jurisdictional error or manifest illegality warranting Article 226 relief.

In the contempt matter, it concluded that wilful and deliberate disobedience had not been established, considering the circumstances of execution and the respondents’ position that they lacked notice of the interim order at the relevant time.

It dismissed all connected writ petitions, including W.P.(C) No. 1769 of 2022, and dismissed CONT No. 512 of 2022; there was no order as to costs.