Order on Board

1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No. 3692/2026 (Ashish Mandal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same.

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ setting aside public notice dated 06.06.2024 (Annexure P/3) in relation to the petitioner's shop. Namely Kishan Vastra Bhandar, in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to not to demolish the shop of the petitioner or interfere with it in any other manner, in the interest of justice.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are refugees/migrants from Bangladesh who, along with their ancestors, were rehabilitated by the Government in the year 1964 under the prevailing rehabilitation scheme and have since remained in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land situated at Village Madanpur, Tehsil Latori, District Surajpur. It is submitted that for more than six decades the petitioners have been residing on the said land, constructed their residential houses, developed agricultural fields, installed tube wells and other necessary infrastructure, and have been solely dependent upon the said land for their livelihood through agricultural activities while regularly paying the requisite government dues. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent University had originally sought allotment of approximately 100 acres of land situated in Village Silfili for establishment of a Horticulture College, Research Centre and service road; however, without any such request from the University for land situated in Village Madanpur, the revenue authorities, in an arbitrary and unjustified manner, initiated proceedings for allotment of the land occupied by the petitioners. It is contended that although the petitioners submitted detailed objections against the proposed allotment, the same were neither duly considered nor decided in accordance with law, and instead, the Collector proceeded to pass orders directing their eviction and transfer of the land in favour of the respondent University. It is further submitted that the reports prepared by the revenue authorities, as well as the opinion of the concerned Gram Panchayat, clearly acknowledged the existence of residential houses and agricultural activities over the land in question and specifically recorded that establishment of the proposed college would seriously prejudice the livelihood of the petitioners and other similarly situated villagers. Learned counsel argues that while the authorities declined to allot land situated in Village Silfili on account of existing residential co