1 2026:CGHC:15027 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 215 of 2021 1 - Dev Kumar Nirmalkar S/o Shri Vishwanath Nirmalkar Aged About 49 Years R/o Chantideeh Thana Sarkanda Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Nagriya Prashashan Vibhag Mantralay Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Anuvibhagiya Adhikari, Karyalay Anuvibhagiya Adhikari Rajasv, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Tahsil Karyalay Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Upper Commissioner, Nagar Palik Nigam Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 7 - Karyapalan Abhiyanta, Nagar Palik Nigam Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Wahab Khan, Advocate For State : Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Resp. No. 5 to 7 : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 यह कि, उ्ቈरवादीगण मां 05, 06 एवं 07 ो किदशित किया जावे कि वे याचिाता े ्ቛारा पे आवेदप्ቔ परिरशि्ቖ पी-02 ा कियमाुसार गुणदोष े आधार पर ी्ቈ किरारण रें। 10.2 यह कि, उ्ቈरवादीगण ो किदशित किया जावे कि वे याचिाता ो हरी किध आवास योजान्तगत ्ቇाम लि,िሙगयाडीह जिज,ा कि0,ासपुर में आ0ंकि1त आवास ा ब्जा ी्ቈ सौंपे। 10.3 यह कि, अन्य अुतोष जो माीय न्याया,य उचित समझे उ्ቈरवादीगणों से किद,ाया जावें। 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially allotted House No. K-04 situated in Village Ligiyadih, District Bilaspur, under the Urban Poor Housing Scheme vide allotment 3 order dated 28.05.2014. However, despite such allotment, the physical possession of the said house was never handed over to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that upon visiting the site, it was found that the said house was already under the occupation of some other person, thereby rendering the allotment ineffective and depriving the petitioner of the benefit intended under the scheme. In view of the aforesaid difficulty, the petitioner submitted an application before the competent authority seeking allotment of an alternative accommodation in lieu of House No. K- 04. Acting upon such request, Respondent No. 06 issued a fresh allotment order dated 15.10.2020, whereby House No. N-01 was allotted to the petitioner in substitution of the earlier allotted house. The petitioner, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the scheme, duly deposited all the required installments, thereby fulfilling all financial obligations. Despite the re-allotment, the grievance of the petitioner persists as the possession of House No. N-01 has also not been handed over. It is contended that the said house is likewise under the occupation of another person. The petitioner has repeatedly approached the respondents by submitting applications requesting delivery of possession of the re-allotted house; however, no effective steps have been taken in this regard. It is further the case of the petitioner that Respondent Nos. 06 and 07 have failed to take any meaningful or timely action either to remove the unauthorized occupant or to hand over vacant possession of the allotted 4 accommodation. The continued inaction on the part of the respondents, despite the petitioner having complied with all requisite conditions, is alleged to be arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the governing rules and constitutional principles. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was lawfully allotted residential accommodation under the Urban Poor Housing Scheme, initially being House No. K-04 and thereafter, upon re-allotment, House No. N-01. It is contended that despite such valid allotment, the respondents have failed to hand over possession of the said house to the petitioner. Instead, the allotted accommodation has been allowed to remain in the occupation of ineligible and unauthorized persons. Such action, or rather inaction, on the part of the respondents is stated to be wholly arbitrary, illegal, and in clear violation of the objectives of the scheme meant for the benefit of deserving beneficiaries like the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has complied with all the conditions prescribed under the scheme and has duly deposited the entire consideration amount towards the allotted house. Despite this, the petitioner has been deprived of the possession of the allotted accommodation for several years. Learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner has been continuously approaching the offices of the respondents and has made repeated representations seeking possession; however, the respondents have failed to take any effective steps either to evict 5 the unauthorized occupants or to ensure delivery of possession to the petitioner. This prolonged inaction has caused severe hardship to the petitioner and his family, who continue to face acute housing difficulties. Learned counsel additionally contends that the failure of the respondents to act upon the applications and representations submitted by the petitioner is contrary to the governing rules and administrative obligations. The arbitrary denial of possession, despite full compliance by the petitioner, is not only unjust but also violative of the petitioner’s legitimate rights under the scheme. It is thus urged that the continued inaction of the respondents is unsustainable in law and warrants appropriate intervention for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is essentially directed against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, i.e., the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, seeking removal of alleged encroachment and delivery of possession of the allotted house. It is contended that no specific relief has been claimed against the State authorities, nor has any cause of action been made out against them. Therefore, the State has been impleaded merely as a formal party in the present proceedings. In such circumstances, no liability or direction can be fastened upon the State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 submits that the petitioner was duly allotted a house under the Nirdhan Awas Scheme vide allotment letter dated 15.10.2020 in Village Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, and the respondents have taken all 6 necessary steps to ensure delivery of possession. It is contended that although initial possession could not be handed over due to encroachment by a third party, prompt action was initiated by the Municipal Corporation upon directions of this Court. Notices were issued to the encroacher on 04.02.2021, and the petitioner was duly informed to remain present on 10.02.2021 for taking possession. Further, assistance of police authorities was sought on 08.02.2021 to facilitate removal of encroachment and ensure peaceful delivery of possession. It is further submitted that on 10.02.2021, after removal of the encroachment, the respondents made arrangements to hand over possession of the allotted house to the petitioner. However, the petitioner himself refused to accept possession in the presence of municipal officers and independent witnesses, which is duly recorded in the possession certificate. Thereafter also, the respondents made further efforts by issuing a letter dated 15.02.2021 requesting the petitioner to take possession, but he failed to appear. In these circumstances, learned counsel contends that the grievance raised by the petitioner no longer survives, as the respondents have already complied with their obligations. Hence, the present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the primary 7 grievance of the petitioner is non-delivery of possession of the house allotted under the Urban Poor Housing Scheme. 8. It is not in dispute that initially the petitioner was allotted House No. K-04, which could not be handed over due to occupation by a third party, and thereafter, pursuant to the petitioner’s request, House No. N-01 was allotted to him vide order dated 15.10.2020. From the record as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, it is evident that the Municipal Corporation took steps to remove the encroachment from the re- allotted house. Notices were issued to the encroacher, police assistance was sought, and arrangements were made for handing over possession to the petitioner on 10.02.2021. It further transpires from the possession certificate placed on record that the petitioner was called upon to take possession after removal of encroachment; however, he refused to accept the same in the presence of officers and independent witnesses. Even thereafter, an additional opportunity was extended to the petitioner vide communication dated 15.02.2021, but he failed to avail the same. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have substantially complied with their obligations by removing the encroachment and offering possession of the allotted house to the petitioner. Once possession was made available and the petitioner himself declined to accept the same, the grievance as raised in the present writ petition does not survive. The relief sought for 8 direction to hand over possession, therefore, cannot be granted at this stage. 10. So far as the allegation of inaction on the part of the respondents is concerned, the material on record does not support such contention, as prompt steps appear to have been taken by the Municipal Corporation to address the issue of encroachment and to facilitate delivery of possession. Hence, no case for interference under writ jurisdiction is made out. However, considering the submission that the house may require repairs or maintenance, it is observed that the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned authorities for repairing of the house, and the authorities shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid observation. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge