State is constitutionally obligated to provide rehabilitation or alternative shelter to landless encroachers before eviction.

The petitioners, landless laborers residing in Village Paloud, Raipur, for approximately 40 years, challenged eviction notices dated 30.01.2026 issued by the Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority (NRDA).

The petitioners asserted that their "Kaccha" houses were constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and sought alternative land allotment and financial assistance.

Although representations were submitted on 20.01.2026, they remained pending.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the eviction notices and a writ of mandamus for rehabilitation.

1. Whether the State and its authorities have a constitutional obligation to provide rehabilitation or alternative shelter to landless encroachers before eviction.

2. Whether the NRDA is bound by its own schemes and internal policies regarding the allotment of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) housing to displaced persons.

The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, which establishes that while no person has a right to encroach on public land, the State has a constitutional duty to provide facilities for settlement and shelter to make the right to life meaningful.

It further cited Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., holding that the right to shelter is a fundamental human right involving adequate living space and civic amenities.

NRDA’s own rehabilitation schemes approved on 10.09.2008, which provide specific plot sizes for displaced persons based on their existing structures.

NRDA order dated 20.12.2017 regarding EWS housing for encroachers.

The court examined the petitioners' long-term occupancy against the backdrop of the NRDA's statutory obligations and internal policies.

It observed that the NRDA's own brochure and meeting minutes from 2008 specifically contemplated the rehabilitation of landless persons through the allotment of plots ranging from 600 to 1000 square feet.

The court noted that the Respondent Authority had previously issued orders to provide EWS housing to individuals encroaching on government land.

By applying the constitutional principles of "right to shelter" to these specific local schemes, the court determined that the petitioners' grievances regarding rehabilitation must be adjudicated by the NRDA under its existing frameworks before any summary eviction could take place.

It granted the petitioners liberty to file fresh applications for rehabilitation or alternative housing within 15 days.

The court directed Respondent No. 2 (NRDA) to decide these applications within 60 days in accordance with applicable laws and schemes.

The court ordered that no coercive steps for eviction shall be taken against the petitioners until a decision is reached on their rehabilitation applications.