Chhattisgarh HC Stays Eviction of Ravishankar Stadium Shopkeepers for Four Months, Directs Reconsideration of Rehabilitation Pleas
Sixteen Durg shopkeepers running businesses for two decades challenged pre-eviction notices tied to a proposed BCCI stadium lease; the High Court halted coercive action for four months and ordered fresh hearings on rehabilitation.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has intervened in the proposed mass eviction of shopkeepers operating out of the Ravishankar Stadium complex in Durg, staying all coercive action for four months from 23 July 2026 and directing the Secretary and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti, Durg to reconsider the petitioners' representations for rehabilitation. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, sitting singly, disposed of sixteen connected writ petitions by a common order, finding that while the petitioners hold no indefeasible right to remain in possession, the procedure adopted for their eviction had to be fair, reasonable, and consistent with constitutional values. The petitioners had been operating their shops for nearly two decades, and the Court noted that their livelihoods directly depended on those establishments.
Pre-Eviction Notice and the BCCI Connection
On 25 June 2026, Respondent No. 3 — the Secretary and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti, Durg — issued a pre-eviction notice directing all the petitioners to vacate their respective shops within the Ravishankar Stadium premises on or before 24 July 2026. The notice relied on a report dated 1 June 2026 submitted by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Durg Division, which described the commercial complex as dilapidated and unsafe. The notice warned that failure to comply would result in forcible eviction by the administration and that any expenses incurred would be recovered through revenue recovery proceedings.
The eviction proceedings traced back to a meeting convened on 16 June 2026 in the presence of the Member of Parliament from Durg. The minutes of that meeting, placed on record before the Court, revealed that the respondents had resolved to evict the shopkeepers and that the underlying purpose was the redevelopment of the stadium and its proposed lease to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for a period of 33 years.
The petitioners — numbering sixteen across connected writ petitions, including Jhamman Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 3730 of 2026) and several others — had been allotted their shops by Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, Durg, a registered society bearing Registration No. 3645 since 28 February 1974. One petitioner, Jhamman Sahu, had been allotted shop no. 104 by an order dated 25 May 2005 at a monthly rent of Rs. 600, and had deposited Rs. 5,000 at the time of allotment. He had operated a printing and photography business under the name Vaibhavi Printers for 21 years and held an Udyam Registration Certificate dated 3 April 2025. Other petitioners similarly operated auto workshops, denting and painting shops, and other small businesses from the stadium premises.
Petitioners' Challenges: Jurisdiction, Due Process, and Livelihood Rights
Ms. Fouziya Mirza, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners with Shri Ali Afzaal Mirza and Shri R.K. Gomasta, raised several overlapping challenges before the Court.
On jurisdiction, she argued that the eviction notice had been issued by the Secretary-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, who was neither the authority that granted the original allotments nor competent to terminate the tenancy. The allotment orders had been issued by Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti, and rent had been consistently paid to that Samiti, establishing a subsisting landlord-tenant relationship. The Secretary's notice was therefore without jurisdiction.
On process, counsel contended that even a person in unlawful possession could not be evicted forcibly without due process, relying on Ajay Kumar v. Northern Railways, (2012) 12 SCC 128, and that the petitioners, who were lawful permissive occupants, could only be evicted by recourse to law. She argued that the respondents could not dispossess the petitioners without invoking the Chhattisgarh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and its prescribed procedure.
On the merits of the PWD report, Shri Gomasta submitted that the report had been prepared without proper inspection or physical verification, rendering it arbitrary and devoid of scientific or technical basis. He also argued that the proposed lease of the stadium to BCCI for 33 years was itself contrary to Clause 9 of the Samiti's bye-laws, which restricted the Samiti's objects to promoting sports activities in Durg District.
On constitutional rights, counsel argued that the impugned notice, issued during the rainy season with only one month to vacate, violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners had submitted representations requesting alternative accommodation or priority in any future allotment in the newly constructed stadium, but those representations had not been considered.
State's Position: Contractual Notice, Public Safety, and No Right to Rehabilitation
Shri R.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, appearing with other panel lawyers for the State, countered each ground.
On the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, the State argued that Section 3 of that Act expressly exempts premises belonging to the State Government, making the Act inapplicable. On the Public Premises Eviction Act of 1974, the State contended that the petitioners were contractual tenants, not yet unauthorised occupants, so the Act had no present application; invoking it would merely be a device to prolong occupation once the tenancy was determined.
On the identity of the Samiti, the State argued that there was only one body — the Jila Kridangan Nirman Samiti — of which the SDO(R) was the Secretary, and that the minor variations in name across documents were clerical, not indicative of two separate entities or of any jurisdictional defect.
On process, the State pointed to the terms of the allotment agreement, which expressly empowered Respondent No. 3 to terminate occupation on one month's prior notice. The pre-eviction notice of 25 June 2026 had complied with that requirement. The PWD report, the State maintained, was based on expert inspection and constituted a legitimate ground for eviction on public safety considerations.
The State also resisted any claim of preferential rehabilitation, arguing that the petitioners held purely contractual rights that had been terminated, and that future allotments, if any, would be subject to a transparent process open to all eligible persons. The State noted that the petitioners had approached the Court only on 11 July 2026, near the end of the notice period, rather than engaging with the eviction notice promptly.
Court's Reasoning: Balancing Public Safety and Livelihood
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad declined to quash the pre-eviction notice but equally declined to permit immediate coercive eviction.
The Court accepted that the petitioners had no vested or indefeasible right to continue in occupation indefinitely, and that the dilapidated condition of the complex, as reported by the PWD, was a legitimate ground for seeking vacation. However, it held that State instrumentalities acting in public interest are nonetheless bound to act fairly and consistently with constitutional values.
The Court pointed to Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees every citizen the right to practise any profession or carry on any trade or business, subject only to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), and to the well-recognised principle that the right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21. While those rights could not override a lawful termination of tenancy, the procedure adopted for eviction had to be non-arbitrary and fair.
The bench found that the petitioners had been directed to vacate during the rainy season without any arrangement for rehabilitation or alternative accommodation, and that their representations to the respondents requesting reasonable time and alternative premises had not been considered. The Court observed that a welfare State is expected to balance public interest with the legitimate concerns of citizens whose livelihoods are affected by administrative action.
Significantly, the Court recorded that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. The order was passed solely to balance the competing interests of public safety and the petitioners' need for reasonable time to make alternative arrangements.
Order
The Court issued the following directions, applicable to all sixteen connected writ petitions:
Respondent No. 3, the Secretary and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti, Durg, is directed to reconsider the representations submitted by the petitioners for providing alternative arrangements for running their shops, or to pass appropriate reasoned orders thereon, after affording them an opportunity of hearing, within a reasonable period. The respondents were also directed to consider providing reasonable assistance or other lawful arrangements to facilitate the petitioners in shifting their business establishments.
No coercive action for eviction shall be taken against the petitioners for a period of four months from 23 July 2026.
The Court clarified, however, that since the shops have been found to be in a dilapidated condition, the petitioners may continue to carry on business for those four months entirely at their own risk and cost. In the event of any mishap during that period, the petitioners alone shall bear responsibility. The State and its authorities shall bear no liability for any such incident.
Upon expiry of the four-month period, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law.
All sixteen writ petitions were disposed of accordingly. The judgment was reserved on 22 July 2026 and delivered on 23 July 2026.