1 CGHC010220112023 2026:CGHC:31323 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3371 of 2023 Netram Verma S/o Late Jethuram Verma, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Mudhiya, Post Mohara, Tahsil- Dangargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector, Rajnandgoan, Distt. Rajnandgoan (C.G.). 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgoan (C.G.). 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dongarhgah, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 5 - Sub Division Officer (R), Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgoan (C.G.). 6 - Tahsildar, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 7 - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mudhiya, Janpad Panchayat, Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgoan (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.07.23 10:20:03 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 22.07.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the action of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.7/Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Mudhiya, in partially demolishing the residential house of the petitioner without issuing any prior notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing, and seeks a direction restraining the respondents from carrying out any further demolition until his claim for grant of lease/patta or rehabilitation under the applicable Government housing scheme is considered. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to pass an order restraining the respondents from demolishing the house of the petitioner from khasra no. 289/1 area 0.40 hectare till providing him any suitable 'patta or awas' under the government scheme. 10.2 That, if the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper call the records pertaining to petitioner's case. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order which may be deed fit and proper in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a landless and homeless person who has been residing on the land 3 in question for nearly three decades after being compelled to leave his ancestral home due to a family dispute. It is submitted that the petitioner has been continuously residing over the land by constructing a residential house, has been provided an electricity connection by the competent authorities, and had been repeatedly requesting the authorities for allotment of a house under the Government housing scheme. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already submitted a detailed representation/application dated 24.06.2023 before the Collector, Rajnandgaon and other competent authorities seeking grant of lease/patta and rehabilitation, which was pending consideration. However, during the pendency of the said application, respondent No.7, without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, partially demolished the petitioner's residential house and further threatened to demolish the remaining portion. It is contended that such action is wholly arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the settled position of law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of Government land and is merely an encroacher. It is submitted that the competent authority appears to have initiated proceedings for removal of the encroachment in accordance with law and, therefore, no illegality can be attributed to the action of the authorities. 4 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7/Sarpanch submits that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon Government land reserved for Gothan. It is contended that despite repeated objections, the petitioner continued raising construction over the said land and, therefore, only the unauthorized portion of the construction was partially demolished. According to the respondent, the action was undertaken only to remove the encroachment from Government land. 6. However, upon a specific query put by this Court, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 was unable to produce or point out any notice issued to the petitioner prior to the demolition of the residential house or any order passed by the competent authority authorizing such demolition after following the procedure prescribed under law. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The issue is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, (2025) 5 SCC 1 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291, while laying down pan-India guidelines governing demolition of structures, has categorically held that even where a person is alleged to be an unauthorized occupant or encroacher upon Government land, the authorities cannot resort to demolition by taking recourse to executive fiat or extra-legal measures. The Court held that the rule of law 5 mandates strict adherence to the principles of natural justice and due process before any coercive action affecting a person's shelter or property is undertaken. The Supreme Court specifically directed that no demolition shall be carried out without issuance of a prior show cause notice, returnable either within the period prescribed under the relevant municipal law or within fifteen days from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later. It was further directed that such notice must be duly served upon the owner/occupier by registered post and also be affixed conspicuously on the structure so as to ensure adequate opportunity to contest the proposed action before the competent authority. The Court further emphasized that even after a demolition order is passed, reasonable time must be afforded to the affected person to avail of appropriate legal remedies before the demolition is executed, observing that the authorities cannot, in a civilized society governed by the rule of law, render persons homeless overnight. These safeguards have been declared to be applicable throughout the country and are binding upon all State authorities in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, by observing as follows :- “86. While considering the issue with regard to the demolition of the houses which are required to be demolished for breach of the local laws, we find that the principle of the rule of law needs to be considered even in the municipal laws. There may be certain 6 unauthorized constructions which could be compoundable. There may be certain constructions wherein only part of the construction is required to be removed. In such cases, the extreme step of demolition of the property/house property would, in our view, be disproportionate. 87. As already discussed herein above, the right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the persons are to be dishoused, then for taking such steps the concerned authorities must satisfy themselves that such an extreme step of demolition is only available and other options including compounding and demolition of only part of the house property are not available. This Court in catena of cases including the Constitution Bench cases of Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Privacy 9-J) and Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India (Demonetization Case-5J) has laid emphasis on the four- pronged test of proportionality. 88. In the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre (supra), this Court observed thus: “60. …….Thus, while examining as to whether the impugned provisions of the statute and rules amount to reasonable restrictions and are brought out in the interest of the general public, the exercise that is required to be undertaken is the 7 balancing of fundamental right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other hand. This is what is known as “doctrine of proportionality”. Jurisprudentially, “proportionality” can be defined as the set of rules determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected right by a law to be constitutionally permissible. According to Aharon Barak (former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Israel), there are four sub-components of proportionality which need to be satisfied [Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitation (Cambridge University Press 2012).], a limitation of a constitutional right will be constitutionally permissible if: (i) it is designated for a proper purpose; (ii) the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment of that purpose; (iii) the measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that may similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation; and finally (iv) there needs to be a proper relation (“proportionality stricto sensu” or “balancing”) between the importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right.” 89. It is also to be noted that the construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights. For an average citizen, the construction of a house is often the culmination of years of 8 hard work, dreams, and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security, and a future. Having a house or a roof over one’s head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available. VIII. PERMISSIBILITY OF THE COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT 90. Right to life is a fundamental right. As already discussed herein above, with the expanded scope of law, the right to shelter has also been considered as one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. In one structure, various people or maybe even a few families could reside. The question that is required to be considered is, as to whether if only one of the residents of such a structure is an accused or convicted in a crime, could the authorities be permitted to demolish the entire structure thereby removing the shelter from the heads of the persons who are not directly or indirectly related with the commission of crime. 91. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence as recognized in our country that a person is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty. In our view, if demolition of a house is permitted wherein number of persons of a family or a few families reside only on the 9 ground that one person residing in such a house is either an accused or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such structure. In our considered view, our constitutional scheme and the criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same. 92. In this respect, it will be apposite to refer to the following observations of Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha45: “111. The cardinal distinction in our punitive jurisprudence between a commission of enquiry and a court of adjudication, between the cumulative causes of a calamity and the specific guilt of a particular person, is that speaking generally, we have rejected, as a nation, the theory of community guilt and collective punishment and instead that no man shall be punished except for his own guilt. Its reflection in the disciplinary jurisdiction is that no worker shall be dismissed save on proof of his individual delinquency. Blanket attainder of a bulk of citizens on any vicarious theory for the gross sins of some only, is easy to apply but obnoxious in principle.” IX. DIRECTIONS 93. In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary to issue certain directions in 10 exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are also of the view that even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before an appropriate forum. We are further of the view that even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period. 94. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law. A. NOTICE 94.1 No demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days’ time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later. 94.2 The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier by a registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall also be affixed 11 conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure in question. 94.3 The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start from the date of receipt of the said notice. 94.4 To prevent any allegation of backdating, we direct that as soon as the show cause notice is duly served, intimation thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/District Magistrate of the district digitally by email and an auto generated reply acknowledging receipt of the mail should also be issued from the office of the Collector/District Magistrate. The Collector/DM shall designate a nodal officer and also assign an email address and communicate the same to all the municipal and other authorities in charge of building regulations and demolition within one month from today. 94.5 The notice shall contain the details regarding: a. the nature of the unauthorized construction. b. the details of the specific violation and the grounds of demolition. c. a list of documents that the noticee is required to furnish along with his reply. d. The notice should also specify the date on which the personal hearing is fixed and 12 the designated authority before whom the hearing will take place; 94.6 Every municipal/local authority shall assign a designated digital portal, within 3 months from today wherein details regarding service/pasting of the notice, the reply, the show cause notice and the order passed thereon would be available. B. PERSONAL HEARING 94.7 The designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned. 94.8 The minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded. C. FINAL ORDER 94.9 Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass a final order. 94.10 The final order shall contain: a. the contentions of the noticee, and if the designated authority disagrees with the same, the reasons thereof; b. as to whether the unauthorized construction is compoundable, if it is not so, the reasons therefor; c. if the designated authority finds that only part of the construction is unauthorized/noncompoundable, then the details thereof. d. as to why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available and 13 other options like compounding and demolishing only part of the property are not available. D. AN OPPORTUNITY OF APPELLATE AND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF THE FINAL ORDER. 94.11 We further direct that if the statute provides for an appellate opportunity and time for filing the same, or even if it does not so, the order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. The order shall also be displayed on the digital portal as stated above. 94.12 An opportunity should be given to the owner/occupier to remove the unauthorized construction or demolish the same within a period of 15 days. Only after the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice has expired and the owner/occupier has not removed/demolished the unauthorized construction, and if the same is not stayed by any appellate authority or a court, the concerned authority shall take steps to demolish the same. It is only such construction which is found to be unauthorized and not compoundable shall be demolished. 94.13 Before demolition, a detailed inspection report shall be prepared by the 14 concerned authority signed by two Panchas. E. PROCEEDINGS OF DEMOLITION 94.14 The proceedings of demolition shall be video-graphed, and the concerned authority shall prepare a demolition report giving the list of police officials and civil personnel that participated in the demolition process. Video recording to be duly preserved. 94.15 The said demolition report should be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner by email and shall also be displayed on the digital portal. 95. Needless to state that the authorities hereinafter shall strictly comply with the aforesaid directions issued by us. 96. It will also be informed that violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution. 97. The officials should also be informed that if the demolition is found to be in violation of the orders of this Court, the officer/officers concerned will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property at his/their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.” 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions 15 in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (supra), it is quite vivid that the action of the respondents does not satisfy even the minimum procedural safeguards mandated by law. Admittedly, the respondents have failed to establish that any prior show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner before partially demolishing his residential house or that any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Equally, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that any competent authority had passed a reasoned order directing demolition after considering the petitioner's objections. On the contrary, it is borne out from the record that much prior to the impugned action, the petitioner had already approached the Collector by submitting an application dated 24.06.2023 seeking grant of lease/patta on the ground that he and his family had been residing over the land in question for nearly three decades and had no alternative residential accommodation. The said application was admittedly pending consideration when the respondents proceeded to demolish a portion of the petitioner's house. 10. Thus, even assuming that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of Government land, the respondents were under a legal obligation to first determine the petitioner's rights in accordance with law and thereafter proceed strictly in conformity with the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court. The impugned action, having been taken in complete disregard of the mandatory safeguards relating to issuance of notice, grant of 16 opportunity of hearing and passing of a reasoned order, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 11. In the present case, it is not disputed that no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before partially demolishing his residential house. It is also evident from the record that much prior to the impugned action, the petitioner had already approached the competent authority by filing an application dated 24.06.2023 seeking grant of lease/patta in respect of the land on the ground that he has been residing there for nearly three decades and has no other residential accommodation. The said application admittedly remained pending consideration. Therefore, irrespective of the petitioner's status over the land, the respondents could not have resorted to demolition of his residential house without first complying with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice and following the procedure established by law. The impugned action, therefore, cannot be sustained. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the partial demolition of the petitioner's residential house without issuance of any notice and without following the procedure mandated by the Supreme Court is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. Accordingly, respondent No.7/Gram Panchayat and all other respondents are restrained from carrying out any further demolition of the petitioner's residential house except by 17 following due process of law. Since the petitioner's application/representation dated 24.06.2023 seeking grant of lease/patta is still pending before the Collector, Rajnandgaon, the Collector is directed to consider and decide the said application strictly in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall file a fresh representation, enclosing a copy of this order, before the Collector within two weeks from today to facilitate consideration of his claim. Till the petitioner's application is decided, no coercive action or further demolition shall be undertaken against the petitioner's existing residential house except in accordance with law and after scrupulous compliance with the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (supra). 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh