The Chhattisgarh High Court has established a critical safeguard for displaced persons by holding that eviction proceedings under land acquisition schemes cannot proceed without first considering eligibility for rehabilitation. This ruling reinforces the state’s obligation to balance development imperatives with constitutional rights to shelter and due process.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Seema Bai Ratre, a 60-year-old resident of Village Khapri, has occupied a 2500 sq ft plot since 1998, with a 620 sq ft kaccha house constructed on it. The land was acquired by the Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Development Authority (NRDA) for urban development. Despite being listed as eligible for rehabilitation under the authority’s settlement policy, she was never allotted an alternative plot. Instead, an eviction notice dated 02.01.2026 was issued under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, directing her to vacate the premises.
Procedural History
- 1998: Petitioner began occupying the land in Village Khapri
- Prior to 2026: Petitioner included in official eligibility list (Annexure-P/2) for rehabilitation patta
- 31.12.2025: Petitioner submitted representation seeking protection from eviction and rehabilitation
- 06.01.2026: Representation received by authorities; no response issued
- 02.01.2026: Eviction notice issued without addressing rehabilitation claim
- 2026: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking quashing of eviction notice and direction for rehabilitation
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (i) quashing of the eviction notice; (ii) declaration that proceedings are void ab initio; (iii) restraint on coercive action; (iv) direction to decide her representation; (v) rehabilitation and allotment of alternative land; and (vi) costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether authorities may initiate eviction under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 against a person already recognized as eligible for rehabilitation under a statutory settlement policy, without first adjudicating their claim for alternative land allotment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner’s inclusion in the official eligibility list created a legitimate expectation of rehabilitation. Citing State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar, he contended that eviction without due consideration of rehabilitation rights violates Article 21 of the Constitution. He emphasized that the eviction notice was issued in bad faith, ignoring the petitioner’s long-standing occupation and statutory eligibility.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s counsel conceded that the petitioner was listed as eligible but argued that no formal patta had been issued, and therefore no legal right to possession had crystallized. They maintained that eviction proceedings were lawful under Section 248, as the land was vested in NRDA, and rehabilitation is a discretionary policy matter, not a legal entitlement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between statutory eviction powers and the state’s obligation under its own rehabilitation policy. It noted that while Section 248 grants authority to evict unauthorized occupants, it does not override the state’s own policy commitments or constitutional duties under Article 21.
"The petitioner has been recognized as eligible for rehabilitation. To proceed with eviction without adjudicating that claim would render the policy a nullity and violate the principle of legitimate expectation."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that rehabilitation is purely discretionary. It held that once a person is formally included in an eligibility list under a public policy, the state cannot arbitrarily exclude them from its benefits. The Court emphasized that procedural fairness demands that rehabilitation claims be decided before coercive action is taken.
The Court further clarified that it was not determining the petitioner’s ultimate entitlement to a plot, but only that the process must be followed. The eviction notice, issued while the rehabilitation claim remained pending, was procedurally flawed.
The Verdict
The petitioner prevailed. The Court held that eviction cannot proceed while a valid rehabilitation claim remains undecided. It directed the authorities to decide the petitioner’s representation within 60 days and prohibited any coercive action until then. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a fresh application.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Rehabilitation Eligibility Precedes Eviction
- Practitioners must now argue that inclusion in any official rehabilitation eligibility list creates a protected interest under Article 21
- Eviction notices issued against eligible persons are prima facie illegal unless rehabilitation has been formally rejected after due process
- Authorities must issue reasoned orders rejecting rehabilitation claims before initiating eviction
Policy Commitments Bind the State
- Public policies framed for displaced persons are not mere administrative guidelines - they carry legal weight when individuals rely on them
- Courts will enforce policy commitments as part of the state’s duty under principle of legitimate expectation
- Failure to implement policy after recognition of eligibility may constitute arbitrariness under Article 14
Procedural Due Process Is Non-Negotiable
- No coercive action - eviction, demolition, or dispossession - is permissible while a rehabilitation claim is pending
- Authorities must provide a fair hearing and written decision within stipulated timelines
- Courts will not entertain eviction petitions where rehabilitation remedies remain unexhausted
