Natural justice mandates reasonable notice and hearing before demolition of structures in long-standing possession.

The petitioners are 23 small shopkeepers who have been carrying out business activities near the Old Bus Stand in Balod for approximately 40–50 years.

They asserted long-standing possession with the tacit consent of the Municipal Council, supported by regular payments of property tax and electricity charges.

On 08.04.2026, the Chief Municipal Officer (Respondent No. 5) issued identical removal notices alleging that the petitioners had encroached upon public land on Sadar Road by constructing shops, tin sheds, and platforms, thereby obstructing public movement.

The notices directed the petitioners to remove the encroachments within three days, failing which the administration would proceed with demolition at the petitioners’ risk and cost.

The petitioners challenged these notices via a writ petition, alleging they were issued without a prior show-cause notice, an opportunity for a hearing, or specific details regarding the extent of the alleged encroachments.

1. Whether the impugned removal notices dated 08.04.2026 are legally sustainable in view of the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice and the lack of a reasonable notice period.

2. Whether the respondents must follow the due process of law prescribed under the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, before taking coercive action against long-standing structures.

Principles of Natural Justice, emphasizing the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing and sufficient notice before adverse administrative action.

Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, which governs the procedure for the removal of encroachments within municipal limits.

Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, which safeguard the right to equality, the right to practice a profession, and the right to livelihood against arbitrary state action.

Precedent in Anil Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 1091/2022), where interim protection was granted against summary demolition.

The Court observed that the petitioners had been in peaceful possession for several decades and were recognized by the state through the collection of taxes.

It found that the three-day period granted for the removal of long-standing structures was "prima facie... insufficient" and inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.

The Court reasoned that an administrative body cannot exercise its powers in a summary or unilateral manner when such actions infringe upon a citizen’s livelihood.

By noting the lack of material particulars in the notices—such as specific survey numbers or the exact extent of encroachment—the Court determined that the petitioners were deprived of a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Consequently, the Court held that the ends of justice required a stay on coercive steps to allow the competent authority to consider the petitioners’ objections and pass a reasoned order after a formal hearing.

The Court ordered the petitioners to file a detailed reply to the notices within seven days.

The Chief Municipal Officer was directed to decide the objections by passing a reasoned and speaking order after providing a fair hearing.

The Court directed that no coercive steps, including demolition or removal of goods, shall be taken by the respondents until the final decision on the petitioners' objections is reached.

The Court clarified it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the encroachment claims.