The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it remains a constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. The Court held that the state cannot lawfully occupy private land without initiating formal acquisition proceedings or providing compensation, reinforcing the principle that deprivation of property must follow due process of law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pusau Singh Gaund, is the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 205, measuring 0.0200 hectares, located at P.H. No. 04, Jagdalla, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa. This land is ancestral property, and the petitioner claims exclusive ownership and possession. Despite the absence of any formal acquisition notice, notification, or compensation payment, the respondents - state authorities including the Public Works Department (PWD) - constructed a government building on the land.
Key Facts
- The petitioner is the lawful owner of Khasra No. 205 as per land records.
- The land was occupied and used by the PWD for construction of a government colony without any acquisition proceedings.
- On 08.09.2023, the petitioner filed an application with the Tahsildar, Champa, seeking redressal.
- Revenue Case No. 202309082500023/A-12 was registered by the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 5) on the basis of this application.
- The Revenue Inspector submitted a report confirming that the disputed land falls within the PWD colony premises.
- The report recommended formation of a joint team of revenue and PWD officers for demarcation and verification.
- On 06.06.2025, the Upper Collector, District Janjgir-Champa, issued an order (Annexure P/3) directing constitution of a joint team for demarcation.
- As of the date of the writ petition, no demarcation had been conducted despite the lapse of nearly ten months.
Procedural History
- 08.09.2023: Petitioner files application with Tahsildar, Champa.
- 06.06.2025: Upper Collector issues order (Annexure P/3) directing joint demarcation by revenue and PWD officers.
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 1111 of 2026 filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Article 226.
- 16.03.2026: Hearing before Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contends that his land has been illegally occupied by the state without any acquisition process, notice, or compensation. He asserts that the order dated 06.06.2025 remains unimplemented and seeks enforcement of that order and, if possession is confirmed, payment of compensation as per Central Valuation Board guidelines.
For the Respondents
The State, through its panel lawyer, does not oppose the petitioner’s prayer. The State acknowledges the validity of the petitioner’s claim and the non-compliance with the order dated 06.06.2025.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Enforcement of the order dated 06.06.2025 directing demarcation of the land.
- Payment of appropriate compensation if the land is found to have been utilized by the PWD.
- Direction to conduct valuation per Central Valuation Board norms, measured in square meters.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 300A of the Constitution of India permits the state to occupy and utilize private land for public purposes without initiating acquisition proceedings or paying compensation, and whether the failure to implement a judicially directed demarcation order constitutes a violation of due process.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the state’s occupation of the land without any acquisition notification, compensation, or legal process violates Article 300A, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law. He emphasized that the order dated 06.06.2025 was a clear directive to ascertain factual possession, and its non-compliance amounts to continued unlawful deprivation. He cited State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar to underscore that even non-acquired land cannot be used by the state without due process.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the petitioner’s claims. The panel lawyer conceded that the land in question may have been used without formal acquisition and agreed that the order dated 06.06.2025 must be implemented. The State expressed willingness to comply with the Court’s directions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f), it continues to be protected as a constitutional right under Article 300A. The Court emphasized that any deprivation of property must be in accordance with law, which includes procedural fairness, notice, and opportunity to be heard.
"The state cannot take possession of private land for public use without following due process of law, even if the intention is to construct a government building."
The Court noted that the order dated 06.06.2025 was a lawful and necessary step to determine factual possession. Its non-enforcement for nearly ten months amounted to continued unlawful occupation. The Court rejected any notion that administrative delay could justify deprivation of property. The State’s non-objection to the petitioner’s prayer further reinforced the legitimacy of the claim.
The Court held that the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300A was prima facie infringed, and the only remedy available was to enforce the existing administrative order and mandate compensation if possession is confirmed.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The Court directed Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer) to comply with the order dated 06.06.2025 within 30 days of receipt of this order. If demarcation confirms that the petitioner’s land has been utilized for construction, compensation shall be paid in accordance with law, based on Central Valuation Board norms, measured per square meter. The entire process, including valuation and payment, must be concluded within five months of completion of demarcation. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Due Process Is Non-Negotiable for Land Use
- Practitioners must now argue that any state occupation of private land - even for public infrastructure - requires either formal acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act or compliance with Article 300A.
- Administrative inaction on judicially directed demarcation orders cannot be tolerated as a form of de facto expropriation.
Compensation Must Follow Possession, Not Precede It
- The judgment clarifies that compensation is not contingent on prior acquisition; if possession is established, compensation becomes mandatory.
- Valuation must be based on official norms (e.g., Central Valuation Board), not arbitrary or outdated rates.
Enforcement of Administrative Orders Is Judicially Enforceable
-
Courts will not hesitate to enforce prior administrative orders when they constitute the only lawful path to remedy unlawful deprivation.
-
Delay in implementation of such orders constitutes a continuing violation of constitutional rights.
-
Always verify land records and prior administrative orders before filing writ petitions.
-
Where state authorities have issued directives for verification, failure to act within reasonable time can be challenged as a violation of Article 300A.
-
Demand valuation per statutory norms, not local or informal rates, in all compensation claims.
