1 CGHC010277152026 2026:CGHC:32155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3883 of 2026 1 - Ansar Ahmed S/o Shri Gulam Akbar, Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 42, Azad Chwok, Kasaridih, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chairman And Collector, Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Secretary And Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Additional District Magistrate, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - Tahsildar, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 6 - Executive Engineer, Public Work Department, Durg Division Durg District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Dadariya Dy. A.G. ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal.That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash the impugned notice dated 25.06.2026 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent no. 3, in the interest of justice. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authorities to rehabilitate the petitioner by giving alternative shop before evicting him. 10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to respondent authorities to grant priority and preference to the petitioner while allotting shop in the newly constructed stadium. 10.4. Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case :- The petitioner by order dated 19.07.2005 issued by respondent No.3, Shop No.105 situated at Pt. 3 Ravishankar Stadium Premises, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), was allotted to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/-, and he also deposited a security amount of Rs. 3,000/- in terms of the said allotment order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner established and has been continuously operating his business under the name and style of "KGN Online Choice Photocopy Center" from the said premises for the last about 21 years, earning his livelihood therefrom while regularly paying the monthly rent to the respondent authorities without any default. The petitioner has also obtained registration of the said establishment under the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, and has been carrying on his business in accordance with law. Further, all expenses relating to the shop, including maintenance and electricity charges, have been borne and regularly paid by the petitioner from time to time. While matters stood thus, a meeting was convened by the respondent authorities on 17.06.2026 in the presence of the Member of Parliament, Durg, wherein a decision was allegedly taken to evict the occupants of the shops situated in the stadium premises on the ground that the existing structure had become severely dilapidated and posed a risk of accidents, necessitating its immediate demolition. Consequent thereto, an eviction notice dated 25.06.2026 was issued directing the petitioner to vacate the allotted shop on or before 24.07.2026, with a further stipulation that in the event of non-compliance, forcible eviction could be undertaken by the respondent authorities. The 4 impugned action has been initiated against the petitioner without following the due process of law and without formulating or implementing any rehabilitation or relocation policy for the existing allottees, despite the petitioner's long-standing lawful occupation of the premises for more than two decades. The proceedings dated 16.06.2026, supplied along with the eviction notice, reveal that the existing stadium premises have been proposed to be leased to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), thereby indicating that the eviction is not merely for reasons of public safety but is intrinsically connected with the proposed redevelopment and leasing of the stadium premises. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned eviction proceedings are wholly arbitrary, illegal, mala fide, and unsustainable in law. It is contended that the petitioner's shop was lawfully allotted by the Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Durg, a duly registered society bearing Registration No. 1645, registered on 28.02.1974, and the petitioner has been regularly paying rent to the said Samiti ever since the allotment. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned eviction notice dated 25.06.2026, having been issued by the Secretary-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Jila Kridangan Samiti, Durg, who is not the competent allotting authority or landlord under the allotment, is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the plea taken by the respondent authorities that the stadium structure has become 5 dilapidated is merely a pretext to dispossess the petitioner and other similarly situated shopkeepers, whereas the real object behind the eviction is to facilitate the proposed leasing of the stadium premises to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for development of an international cricket stadium. The photographs of the existing stadium, according to the petitioner, belief the respondents' assertion regarding the alleged dangerous condition of the structure. It is further submitted that the project for handing over the stadium to the BCCI had already been finalized, yet the respondent authorities proceeded to issue eviction notices without formulating any rehabilitation or resettlement policy for the existing lawful occupants who have been carrying on their business from the premises for decades. 5. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, along with other shopkeepers, has already submitted representations requesting rehabilitation before any eviction is undertaken; however, the same have not been considered by the authorities. It is further argued that the impugned notice was issued during the rainy season, granting an unreasonably short period to vacate the premises, without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing or complying with the requirements of due process of law. It is contended that the respondent authorities cannot, under the guise of redevelopment, deprive the petitioner of his lawful possession and means of livelihood in an arbitrary manner, as such action would infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed 6 under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to livelihood and the right to shelter constitute integral facets of the right to life, and any action resulting in deprivation thereof must be just, fair, reasonable, and in accordance with the procedure established by law. 6. Learned counsel further submits that before displacing persons who have been in lawful occupation for more than two decades, the State is under a constitutional obligation to formulate a fair and reasonable rehabilitation or resettlement scheme so that they are not rendered destitute or deprived of their sole source of livelihood. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in occupation of the shop pursuant to a valid allotment order and is a lawful tenant under the respondent authorities on payment of monthly rent of Rs. 600/-. Consequently, the relationship between the parties is that of landlord and tenant, and the petitioner cannot be dispossessed except by following the due process of law. The impugned action, being in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice, the rule of law, and the constitutional guarantees protecting the petitioner's livelihood and dignity, deserves to be set aside by this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned eviction notice has been issued by the competent authority in accordance with law and in larger public interest, as the stadium building has become dilapidated and requires redevelopment. It is contended that the petitioner has no vested 7 right to continue in occupation of the public premises and that the decision to redevelop the stadium, including its proposed lease to the BCCI, is a policy matter not amenable to judicial interference. It is further submitted that the action has been taken uniformly against all similarly situated occupants and is neither arbitrary nor mala fide. The respondents, therefore, pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner is occupying the shop pursuant to allotment orders/agreements executed by the competent authority on payment of monthly rent. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been carrying on the businesses from the said shop, namely, "KGN Online Choice Photocopy Center" for nearly two decades or more, and for many him the shop constitute his principal source of livelihood. It is also borne out from the material placed on record that the commercial complex in which the shop is situated has been reported by the Public Works Department to be in a dilapidated and unsafe condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. 9. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that the petitioner do not possess any vested or indefeasible right to continue in occupation of the shops indefinitely. Equally, however, the State and its instrumentalities, while taking action for eviction in public interest, are expected to act in a manner that is fair, reasonable and consistent with constitutional values. The petitioner has been 8 carrying on his business from the premises for a considerable period of time and their livelihood is directly dependent upon the said establishments. Directing him to vacate the premises during the rainy season, without affording them a reasonable opportunity to make alternative arrangements or to resettle their business, would result in undue hardship. 10. The State, being a welfare State, is expected to balance public interest with the legitimate concerns of citizen whose livelihood is likely to be affected by administrative action. While ensuring public safety by removing occupants from an unsafe structure is undoubtedly a legitimate objective, the authorities cannot ignore the consequences that such action may have upon the livelihood of the petitioner. The record reveals that the petitioner has submitted representations requesting reasonable time and appropriate rehabilitation or alternative arrangements. The said representations deserve due consideration before any coercive action is undertaken. 11. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the fundamental right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business, subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6). The right to livelihood has also been recognized as an integral facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Although the petitioner cannot insist upon continuation of their occupation contrary to law, the procedure 9 adopted for his eviction must be fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary so as to adequately safeguard his constitutional rights. 12. Considering the totality of the circumstances, particularly the long-standing occupation of the petitioner, the fact that his businesses constitute his primary source of livelihood, and the prevailing rainy season, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by directing the respondents to reconsider the representation of the petitioner with a hope of alternative arrangements by the petitioner for shifting his establishment. 13. Accordingly, Respondent No. 3-Secretary and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Krindangan Samiti Durg, District Durg C.G. is directed to reconsider the representation submitted by the petitioner for providing alternative arrangement to petitioner for running his shop or to pass appropriate reasoned order thereon, after affording an opportunity of hearing, within a reasonable period. The respondents shall also consider providing reasonable assistance, or any other lawful arrangement to facilitate the petitioner in shifting their business establishments. It is further directed that no coercive action for eviction shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of four months from the date of this order. However, it is made clear that, since the shop has been found to be in a dilapidated condition, the petitioner may continue to carry on business therein for a period of four months at their own risk and cost. In the event of any mishap or untoward incident 10 occurring during this period, the petitioner alone shall be solely responsible for the consequences thereof. The State and its authorities shall bear no liability or responsibility for any such mishap or incident. Upon expiry of the said period, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. 15. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties. The present order has been passed only with a view to balance the competing public interest of ensuring public safety with the petitioner's need for reasonable time to make alternative arrangements for their livelihood. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena