Chhattisgarh High Court Grants 4 Months' Protection To Durg Stadium Shopkeepers Facing Eviction Ahead Of Proposed Redevelopment

The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed that no coercive action be taken for four months against shopkeepers facing eviction from shops situated in the Ravishankar Stadium complex at Durg, observing that while the State is entitled to evict occupants from a structurally unsafe building in public interest, such action must be fair, reasonable and consistent with constitutional values. The Court further held that the authorities must consider the shopkeepers' representations seeking alternative arrangements after affording them an opportunity of hearing, as their long-standing businesses constitute their primary source of livelihood.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging pre-eviction notices issued by the Secretary-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), directing the petitioners to vacate their allotted shops on the ground that the commercial complex had been declared dilapidated by the Public Works Department. The petitioners, many of whom had been running businesses from the shops for over two decades, contended that the eviction notices had been issued without due process, without any rehabilitation policy and to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the stadium and its lease to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). They sought quashing of the notices, rehabilitation through alternative shops and preference in allotment of shops in the proposed new stadium.

The Court noted that the petitioners had been occupying the shops pursuant to valid allotments, paying rent and carrying on their businesses for nearly two decades or more, making the establishments their principal source of livelihood. At the same time, it found that the Public Works Department had reported the commercial complex to be in a dilapidated and unsafe condition requiring demolition and reconstruction.

The Court observed that although the petitioners possessed no vested or indefeasible right to remain in occupation indefinitely, the State, while pursuing public safety, was required to act fairly and reasonably. It held that directing the shopkeepers to vacate during the rainy season, without providing them a reasonable opportunity to make alternative arrangements or considering their pending representations, would result in undue hardship.

“The State, being a welfare State, is expected to balance public interest with the legitimate concerns of citizens 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 petitioners,” the Court observed.

Referring to Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated that while occupation cannot continue contrary to law, the procedure for eviction must remain fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary so as to protect the petitioners' constitutional rights.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Secretary-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Jila Kridangan Samiti, Durg, to reconsider the petitioners' representations for alternative arrangements, pass reasoned orders after granting them an opportunity of hearing, and consider providing reasonable assistance or other lawful arrangements to facilitate shifting of their business establishments.

The Court further directed that no coercive eviction shall be undertaken for a period of four months from the date of the judgment. However, the Court clarified that the petitioners would continue to occupy the dilapidated premises during this period entirely at their own risk and cost, and that the State would bear no responsibility for any mishap.

Case Title: Jhamman Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (With Connected Matters) [WPC No. 3730 of 2026]

Click Here To Read/Download Order