Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Bench

Order Date: 03.11.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: A group of nine writ petitions (WPC Nos. 3644, 3667, 3673, 3676, 3681, 4555, 4587 of 2022 and WPC No. 1882 of 2023) and one contempt petition (CONT No. 512 of 2022). Petitioners include M/s Mahalaxmi Trading (partner Harish Sadwani), D.P. Bansal Commercial Company Pvt. Ltd. (partner Rahul Bansal), M/s Lakhmi Chand Agrawal (partner Naresh Agrawal), M/s Bansal Brothers (partner Anoop Bansal), Durga Dharam Kanta (proprietor Smt. Karuna Bansal), Md. Rafiq, Md. Shakeel Ahmed, Md. Pyare Sahab, Madan Lal Agarwal (proprietor M/s Agrawal Enterprises), I.A. Dhas, and others. All claim to be lawful licensees/occupants of plots situated at G.E. Road, Khursipar, Bhilai, originally allotted by Bhilai Steel Plant in 1976‑1979.
  • Respondents: Union of India (Secretary, Ministry of Steel), Steel Authority of India Limited (registered office and Bhilai Steel Plant), The Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, State of Chhattisgarh (Collector Durg), Superintendent of Police Durg, Municipal Corporation Bhilai (Commissioner). The respondents are the statutory owners and enforcement authorities of the public premises.
  • Background: The occupants entered into licence/lease agreements with Bhilai Steel Plant in 1976‑1979, paid rent, electricity charges and property tax for several decades. In 2004 and 2010 the Estate Officer issued eviction orders under the Public Premises Act (orders dated 31.07.2004, 03.09.2004, 14.08.2010, 23.10.2010, etc.). The petitioners argue the orders are stale, that they are lawful licensees, and seek restraining orders, setting aside of the eviction orders, and conversion of licences to leases.
  • Reliefs Sought: Each writ petition sought (i) restraint of respondents from giving effect to specific eviction orders (various dates), (ii) direction not to convert licences to leases, (iii) setting aside of the said orders, and (iv) any other appropriate relief. The contempt petition (CONT No. 512 of 2022) alleged wilful disobedience of an interim order dated 08.04.2022 directing status‑quo, claiming the respondents dispossessed the petitioner on 19.04.2022.
  • Procedural History: Interim protection was granted on 08.04.2022 in WPC No. 1769/2022. Execution of eviction took place on 09.09.2022 (and on 17.08.2022 in other cases) with sealing of premises, as recorded in execution reports and panchnamas. Subsequent applications for removal of seal were filed, but the Estate Officer warned against re‑entry. The petitioners filed the contempt petition alleging breach of the interim order.
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioners contended that the original licence prohibited sub‑letting or partnership, thus their possession derived from an invalid transfer; they emphasized long possession, payment of dues, and that the eviction orders were decades old and therefore “unexecutable”. Respondents argued that the premises are public premises of Bhilai Steel Plant, the licence was personal to the original allottee, the occupants are unauthorised, and the eviction orders were valid, final, and executed under the PP Act. They cited statutory provisions (Sections 4(1), 5(1), 7(1), 7(2) of the PP Act) and execution authorisations dated 24.08.2004, 03.04.2006, 25.04.2007, 11.08.2010, 05.06.2014, 12.11.2020, 16.10.2021, and the sealing on 09.09.2022.
  • Supreme Court Precedent: The court referred to Life Insurance Corporation of India v. VITA (2026) SCC 427, emphasizing that the PP Act overrides rent‑control statutes and that unauthorised occupation cannot be protected by rent‑control law. It also cited Board of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta v. Kalipada Bhakat (2014) SCC 573 and Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority (2012) supporting the view that objections must be pursued under the statutory scheme.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court dismissed all nine writ petitions (WPC Nos. 3644, 3667, 3673, 3676, 3681, 4555, 4587 of 2022 and WPC No. 1882 of 2023) and the contempt petition (CONT No. 512 of 2022).
  • The court held that the petitioners have no lawful right to continue occupying the public premises, that the original licence prohibited transfer, and that long possession, payment of rent/electricity, or construction does not create a legal title.
  • The eviction orders dated 31.07.2004, 03.09.2004, 14.08.2010, 23.10.2010, 16.10.2021 and related execution orders were upheld.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants, Public Premises Act, Judicial Review