1 2025:CGHC:21828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2521 of 2025 1 - Smt. Kamla Sahu W/o Govind Das Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Ward No. 25, Behind Civil Court, Satipara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Assistant Director, Town And Country Planning Regional Officer Ambikapur, Old Employee Office, Ring Road, Namnakala Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned eviction order dated 04.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no. 4 as well as order dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent no. 2, in the interest of justice. 10.ii) That, further this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities that before removal of the house of the petitioner an alternate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 arrangement may be made for the rehabilitation of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.iii) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a senior citizen residing at Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Ward No. 25, Behind Civil Court, Satipara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. She currently resides in a house constructed on a piece of land that she claims is her ancestral property. The land in question has allegedly been in uninterrupted possession of the family of the petitioner for over 50 years. Initially, it was possessed by her father-in-law, Late Puran Lal Sahu, followed by her mother-in-law, Damyanti Sahu, and subsequently by the petitioner herself. On 07.11.1991, respondent authority (Respondent No. 4) issued a memorandum for permanent lease of the subject land in favour of the mother of the petitioner, directing her to deposit 41,000. The petitioner claims to have ₹ deposited a sum of 1,10,000/- on 29.03.2022 towards allotment of the ₹ said land and has regularly paid electricity bills and property tax. A No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued in favour of the petitioner on 07.08.2023 by the authorities, further evidencing her legitimate occupation. Despite the above, the petitioner was neither granted a formal lease nor provided any rehabilitation. Instead, she has been served with an eviction order, prompting her to approach this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner and her family, including a paralyzed husband and a mentally ill son, currently reside on the said land and have no alternative place of residence. The petitioner contends that adjacent land has been regularized and allotted to others, but her applications and representations have been overlooked. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a citizen of India, is entitled to protection of her life and shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned eviction order violates her fundamental rights. The petitioner has been in continuous possession of the subject land for several decades and has complied with all formalities, including payment of taxes and deposit of amounts demanded by authorities, demonstrating her bona fide claim. While adjacent land has been allotted to others in similar situations, the petitioner alone has been singled out for eviction, indicating arbitrary and discriminatory conduct by the respondent authorities. No adequate opportunity of hearing was granted prior to the issuance of the eviction order, making the action violative of principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a vulnerable individual, an elderly woman with a paralyzed husband and a mentally ill son, and the authorities have taken no steps to ensure her rehabilitation prior to eviction, thereby violating applicable policies and humanitarian obligations under relevant rehabilitation laws. Evicting the petitioner without providing an alternative would leave her and her family homeless, causing severe and irreparable hardship. The petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned eviction order and for a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize her possession by granting a permanent lease in accordance with the law. 4. Learned counsel for the respective parties submits that the petitioner has not been granted a patta (permanent lease) over the subject land. While it is true that a memorandum dated 07.11.1991 was issued in favour of the mother of the petitioner for the purpose of allotment upon deposit of 41,000/-, no formal lease deed has ever been executed in ₹ favour of the petitioner or her predecessor-in-title. As such, the 4 petitioner cannot claim any legal title or enforceable right over the land merely on the basis of possession or payment of property tax and utility bills. It is further submitted that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued to the petitioner on 07.08.2023 was procedural and did not create any proprietary rights over the subject land. The NOC cannot be construed as a document conferring title or regularizing possession in the absence of a formal allotment or lease issued by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the action taken by the authorities in issuing the eviction notice was within the framework of law and after following due process. However, the learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that the petitioner may submit a detailed representation before the competent authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the submissions made on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires a proper examination by the competent authority. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a comprehensive representation before the competent authority within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order, enclosing all relevant documents and raising all the grounds as stated in this writ petition. In turn, upon receipt of such representation, the competent authority are directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law, applicable policy, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of such representation. Till the decision on the representation is taken, no coercive steps shall be taken to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. 5 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims made by the petitioner. 8. With this observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE