Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 05.11.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Ramakrishna Vivekananda Mission, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1973, represented by Assistant Secretary Swami Sukhadananda.
  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (through Secretary Housing and Environment), Collector Raigarh, Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Rent Controlling Authority (SDO‑cum‑RCA) Raigarh, and Kirodimal Charity Trust (Trust).
  • Nature of proceedings: Two writ petitions (WPC No. 4845/2021 and WPC No. 2126/2022) challenging the cancellation of an allotment of land and building at Handi Chowk, Raigarh, which the petitioner uses to run a school (Sharda Shishu Vihar) for orphan and economically weaker children.
  • Background:
  • Allotment order dated 04.02.2004 granted possession of the premises to the petitioner for educational purposes.
  • The property originally vested with the State on 01.10.1986; earlier dispute (W.P. No. 6098/1998) dismissed on 04.05.2018.
  • On 15.09.2021 the SDO‑cum‑RCA issued a show‑cause notice alleging unauthorized use; petitioner replied on 20.09.2021.
  • The authority cancelled the allotment on 30.09.2021 (Order No. 3615/AVA/2021).
  • Kirodimal Charity Trust, claiming prior lease rights dating from 1952 (renewed till 31.03.2052), filed a complaint (01.10.2021) leading to the proceedings.
  • Reliefs prayed:
  • WPC 4845/2021: Set aside the notice and cancellation order, injunction against interference, and costs.
  • WPC 2126/2022: Set aside the complaint and related proceedings, injunction, and costs.
  • Counsel arguments:
  • Petitioner's counsel (Harsh Dave, Khulesh Sahu) argued the RCA lacked jurisdiction and acted suo motu without a proper complaint, violating statutory procedure.
  • Respondent 4’s counsel argued the complaint was filed, the allotment was for temporary office use, and the petitioner violated conditions, justifying eviction.
  • The court examined lease history, noting the Trust’s lease renewal and the State’s prior handover to other entities.
  • Legal reasoning:
  • The court emphasized that statutory powers must be exercised strictly according to the procedure prescribed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
  • Cited Supreme Court precedents (Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat, 2014; Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala, 1999; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Vivek Gawde, 2024) reinforcing the need for adherence to statutory procedure and avoidance of bias.
  • Determined that the show‑cause notice and cancellation order were issued without jurisdiction and without following due process, rendering them invalid.

Final Outcome

  • The court quashed the show‑cause notice dated 15.09.2021 and the cancellation order dated 30.09.2021 issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer‑cum‑Rent Controlling Authority.
  • Both writ petitions (WPC 4845/2021 and WPC 2126/2022) were allowed.
  • The order clarified that the competent authority may initiate appropriate action only after complying with the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Court Order, Rent Control, Educational Society