Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 17/09/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners P.K. Deb (aged ~59) and his wife Sapna Deb (aged ~57), residents of Quarter No.1‑B, Street‑34, Sector‑10, Bhilai Nagar, Durg, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the cancellation of their 30‑year lease dated 16‑02‑2002 and the subsequent eviction order dated 03‑07‑2017.
  • The lease was granted under the "SAIL Scheme for Leasing of House to Employees 2001‑2003" after payment of Rs 4,15,037 on 30‑03‑2002.
  • Respondents (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Bhilai Steel Plant) issued notices in 2007 alleging unauthorized additional construction and alleged commercial use (hostel) of the quarter.
  • Petitioners denied the commercial use allegation, claimed the extra construction was for family needs and was willing to regularise it by paying the prescribed penalty.
  • The Estate Officer, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioners occupied 4,739 sq ft against an allotted 3,083 sq ft, with 1,656 sq ft constituting unauthorised encroachment and additional construction of 1,833 sq ft on the ground floor and a first‑floor building.
  • The Estate Officer ordered eviction, payment of damages of Rs 1,47,517.84 for the period 26‑07‑2009 to 31‑01‑2012, and future damages of Rs 4,288.37 per month for the original lease area and Rs 22,365.68 per month for the encroached area, together with electricity, water and conservancy charges.
  • Petitioners appealed the Estate Officer’s order (Regular Civil Appeal No. 34/2017) on grounds of jurisdiction, lack of specific measurement of encroachment, and that the lease could only be terminated by a civil court. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on 25‑09‑2018, affirming the Estate Officer’s order.
  • In the writ petition, petitioners argued that the lease’s 30‑year term rendered the premises non‑public, that the termination was arbitrary, and that similar allottees were not penalised. Respondents contended that the lease terms allowed cancellation for unauthorised construction and that the Estate Officer correctly applied the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
  • On 21‑07‑2025 petitioners submitted a representation offering to remove the additional construction and pay penalties; respondents rejected this on 02‑08‑2025, stating no provision for regularisation exists.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, held that the cancellation of the lease was valid, the unauthorised construction was established, and the lower courts’ findings were not perverse or jurisdictionally erroneous.
  • The petition seeking quash of the lease termination and eviction orders was dismissed.
  • Respondents were directed to decide the petitioners’ pending representation on regularisation within 15 days.

Topics: Lease Termination, Public Premises Eviction