1 2025:CGHC:35265-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 498 of 2025 1 - Bhanwar Sen Mogare S/o Late Puran Lal Mogare Aged About 52 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Barkha Kunwar W/o Jugesh Kunwar Aged About 32 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station - Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Kalka Hathgen D/o Mahipal Hathgen Aged About 45 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station - Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Neha Samudre W/o Umesh Samudre Aged About 30 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station - Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Reena Khudsa W/o Anil Khudsa Aged About 39 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Suraj Prasad Kunwar S/o Mithailal Kunwar Aged About 64 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Sarita Chouhan W/o Ramuram Chouhan Aged About 59 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Sarla Hathgen W/o Bhola Hathgen Aged About 55 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Krishna Bai W/o Gopal Aged About 65 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 10 - Shivranjani Biriya W/o Ram Kumar Biriya Aged About 36 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 11 - Soni Bai Karihar W/o Bhura Karihar Aged About 43 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 12 - Fulbai Yadav W/o Sukhdev Yadav Aged About 57 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Sushmita Sahu W/o Sunil Sahu 39 Aged About 39 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 14 - Tara Soni W/o Pardeshi Soni Aged About 42 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 15 - Shashi Yadav W/o Ramsevak Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 16 - Reena Hathgen W/o Gopi Hathgen Aged About 43 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 17 - Savitri Pangare Alias Savitri Asret D/o Jagesar Pangare Aged About 50 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 47, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 18 - Madhuri Chouhan W/o Late Madan Chouhan Aged About 50 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 19 - Kaushalya Baldev W/o Late Jogender Baldev Aged About 43 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 20 - Savitri Sonkar W/o Babbu Sonkar Aged About 50 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 21 - Laxmi Das W/o Bapi Das Aged About 42 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 22 - Sunil Kumar Maiti S/o Gunadhar Maiti Aged About 55 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 23 - Pyari Bai Sahu W/o Guluram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 24 - Fulbai Mahettar W/o Late Babulal Aged About 70 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 25 - Munjo Berha @ Lata Bai W/o Vikas Berha Aged About 35 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 26 - Anju Dakha W/o Raju Dakha Aged About 42 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 27 - Rani Barman W/o Amit Barman Aged About 43 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 28 - Sanno Bai D/o Jatan Lal Aged About 31 Years R/o Bapu Upnagar, Railway Area, Ward No. 70, Police Station- Torwa, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, New Delhi (India) 2 - The Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi (India) 3 - General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 5 - Senior Sub-Divisional Engineer (Works), South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Senior Sub-Divisional Engineer (Awash), South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Assistant Divisional Engineer (Awas-II), South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 8 - Senior Section Engineer (Works/East), South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 9 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 10 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Director, Urban Administration and Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 12 - Collector, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 13 - Executive Engineer, Awas Shakha, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Distt Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. For Respondent-Union of India Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy S.G. For State-Respondents : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents No.9 and 13 Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23-07-2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. 5 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, I.A. No.02/2025 is allowed and delay of 57 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 06-03-2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.1257 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners/writ appellants has been dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the writ appellants would submit that pursuant to the order dated 02-12-2019 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.103 of 2016 the Municipal Corporation conducted a survey of the occupied houses of the appellants, though the survey was conducted under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (in short ‘PMAY’) scheme, but the writ appellants have been offered the accommodation under the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (in short ‘IHSDP’), the writ appellants are entitled and eligible for accommodation under PMAY, but they are being offered houses under IHSDP scheme. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in the light of para 20 of the order dated 02-12-2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.103 of 2016 by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the writ appellants should have been considered their rehabilitation under PMAY and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels for the Union of India as well as the State and Municipal Corporation have opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the writ appellants and would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and is strictly in accordance with law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. 7. The core claim of the writ appellants are that they are entitled for their rehabilitation and accommodation under PMAY, but the authorities concerned 6 have offered the accommodation under the IHSDP scheme. The Municipal Corporation, in compliance of the order dated 02-12-2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.103 of 2016 by the coordinate Bench of this Court have conducted survey on 21-02-2020 of the occupied houses of the petitioners/appellants. 8. Para 20 of the order dated 02-12-2019 of the Writ Appeal No.103 of 2016 is relevant and reproduced hereinbelow;- “20. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, looking to the claim of Appellants that they are residing since long over the lands in question, Respondents No. 5 and 8 are directed to complete the procedure of verification of the credentials of the Appellants at the earliest and to prepare a list of eligible persons among the Appellants to be entitled for benefit under the housing scheme and to place them in the entire list of eligible persons prepared by Municipal Corporation as encroacher on Government lands including the lands of Railways and to allot the houses as and when available. We also direct that the Respondents No. 5 and 8 will not make any discrimination amongst encroachers of State Government land, land of Municipal Corporation or the land of Railways, but will allot the available accommodation or accommodation to be constructed strictly in accordance with the seniority in the list.” 9. From perusal of para No.20 of the order passed in Writ Appeal No.103 of 2016 there is no specific direction as to in which scheme the petitioners/writ appellants are to be rehabilitated or to provide accommodation for their rehabilitation, it is only direction to the authorities to allot the available accommodation or accommodation to be constructed in accordance with seniority in the list. The petitioners/writ appellants cannot claim that they may be provided accommodation under a particular scheme of the State 7 Government and it is for the State Government or local authorities to consider the claim under which the accommodation is to be provided as per their entitlement. 10. While considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material produced in the petition the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the accommodation offered to the writ petitioners under IHSDP scheme and the petitioners cannot refuse to accept the same. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the writ appellants. 11. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil