1 2025:CGHC:58465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5706 of 2023 1 - Chatram Khatkar S/o Firturam Khatkar Aged About 57 Years R/o Qtr. No. 11, Pwd, Colony, Balodabazar, Currentrly Posted As Assistant Grade - 2, Pwd, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Collector Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Khem Singh Dhruv Assistant Grade - I, District Treasury, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 31.07.2023 issued by the Ld. Collector, Balodabazar and Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 allow the Petitioner to retain House No. H-11, PWD Colony Balodabazar. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is employed as Assistant Grade–II in the Public Works Department, Balodabazar. Owing to administrative contingency, the Executive Engineer, PWD Balodabazar, allotted to the petitioner House Type-H, No. 11, by order dated 25.11.2022, a copy of which was also forwarded to the Collector, Balodabazar for information. Pursuant to the said allotment, the petitioner took possession of the premises on 12.04.2023 and duly intimated the Office of the Collector on 13.04.2023. Since then, the petitioner has been residing in the said government accommodation. However, the Collector, Balodabazar, by order dated 31.07.2023, directed the petitioner to vacate House Type-H, No. 11 on the ground that the premises had been allotted to one Shri Khemsingh Dhruv, Assistant Grade-II, District Treasury, Balodabazar, under an order dated 25.01.2023. It is significant that the original allotment order dated 25.11.2022 in favour of the petitioner has not been cancelled, modified, or superseded by any competent authority. Aggrieved by the abrupt direction to vacate the quarter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 04.08.2023 to the Collector, explaining that he occupies the premises pursuant to the still-subsisting allotment order of the Executive Engineer and further requesting retention of the quarter, particularly as his daughter’s school is located nearby. Despite such 3 representation, no relief was granted, leading to the filing of the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the petitioner has been in lawful possession of House Type-H No. 11 pursuant to a valid allotment order dated 25.11.2022, which has neither been modified nor cancelled, yet the Collector has directed the petitioner to vacate the premises without any authority of law. It is further submitted that the petitioner continues to serve in the PWD, and the premises falls within the general pool; hence, under the Works Department Manual, the Collector has no jurisdiction to order eviction, particularly without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner is not an unauthorized occupant and therefore proceedings, if any, must lie only before the competent authority under the Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam, 1974. The petitioner had duly informed the Collector regarding the allotment order as well as taking possession on 12.04.2023, yet the impugned order has been passed dehors such communication. The only ground cited for eviction, that the premises were later allotted to another employee by order dated 25.01.2023, is untenable, since no authority can confer a better title than it possesses, and once the allotment of 25.11.2022 had already vested valid rights in the petitioner, the Collector lacked 4 jurisdiction to re-allot the same premises to a third party. On these grounds, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned State counsel, at the very outset, categorically and vehemently denies all adverse allegations levelled against the respondent authorities in the writ petition. It is submitted that the Collector, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, by order dated 25.01.2023, has lawfully allotted Government House No. H-11, situated within the PWD premises at Balodabazar, in favour of respondent No. 4. Although the petitioner is presently in occupation of the said house by virtue of an earlier order dated 25.11.2022 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD, the subsequent and valid allotment order issued by the competent authority necessitated issuance of the direction dated 31.07.2023 requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises. The challenge raised by the petitioner on the ground of lack of power with the Collector or absence of opportunity of hearing is misconceived and untenable. It is further submitted that under Rule 2(d) of the Government Awas Abantan Niyam, 2000, the Collector is expressly designated as the "Allotment Officer" for government accommodation falling under the general pool, a position further clarified by Government Memo dated 05.08.2002, which vests the Collector with authority to allot such houses on the recommendation of the duly constituted allotment committee. Copies of several allotment orders issued by the Collector demonstrate consistent exercise of such authority. With respect to the petitioner’s grievance regarding lack of opportunity of hearing, learned State counsel submits that the impugned communication dated 31.07.2023 itself granted seven days' time to vacate the 5 premises, thereby fulfilling the requirement of notice. It is thus contended that the impugned action is lawful, justified and taken strictly in pursuance of the valid allotment order dated 25.01.2023, and that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that certain foundational facts remain undisputed. The petitioner was allotted House Type-H No. 11 by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Balodabazar, through order dated 25.11.2022, which was also communicated to the Collector. Acting upon this lawful allotment, the petitioner took possession of the premises on 12.04.2023 and duly informed the authorities on the following day. This allotment order has neither been cancelled, modified, nor superseded by any authority competent under law. Despite this, the Collector issued the impugned direction dated 31.07.2023 requiring the petitioner to vacate the premises solely on the basis of a subsequent allotment order dated 25.01.2023 issued in favour of another employee. 6. The central issue that arises is whether the Collector could have validly ordered re-allotment of premises already allotted to the petitioner, without first cancelling the earlier allotment and without affording any opportunity of hearing. The record reflects that no proceedings were initiated to declare the petitioner an unauthorized occupant nor was any notice issued calling upon him to explain why he should not be dispossessed. The impugned letter merely grants seven days’ time to vacate but does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of prior notice or hearing. Such an 6 approach is clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, under the Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar Bedakhali Adhiniyam, 1974, eviction from government accommodation can only be undertaken by the competent authority designated under the statute. The Collector is not vested with jurisdiction to unilaterally dispossess an occupant whose allotment continues to remain valid. The Works Department Manual also establishes that the Executive Engineer is empowered to allot premises in situations of contingency. Once such an allotment was made to the petitioner and duly communicated, the Collector could not have overridden it without lawful cancellation. The doctrine that “no one can transfer a better title than he himself possesses” equally applies. Thus, the subsequent allotment order dated 25.01.2023 issued in favour of respondent No. 4, without first nullifying the petitioner’s existing allotment, is legally unsustainable. 7. The explanation offered by the State that the Collector is designated as the allotment authority under Rule 2(d) of the Government Awas Abantan Niyam, 2000, does not advance the State’s case. Even if the Collector possesses allotment powers, such authority must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked to invalidate an existing, unchallenged allotment made by another competent authority, nor can it justify dispossession without following due process. The failure to cancel the earlier allotment or give the petitioner a hearing renders the impugned order arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and therefore liable to be quashed. 7 8. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 is unsustainable, having been passed without jurisdiction, in violation of statutory procedure, and in breach of the petitioner’s rights. The petitioner has been in lawful occupation of the premises pursuant to a valid allotment order and cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 10. The impugned order dated 31.07.2023 issued by the Collector, Balodabazar, is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be permitted to retain possession of House Type-H No. 11, PWD Colony, Balodabazar, unless and until his allotment dated 25.11.2022 is cancelled by competent authority after due process of law and after granting adequate opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE