News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 13
Bilaspur, 05.01.2026 : A long-running land dispute in Durg district took a decisive turn as the High Court of Chhattisgarh delivered its judgment on January 5, 2026, partly allowing a first appeal filed by members of the Sharma family over land used for the construction of a public bus stand. The court held that while demolition of the completed public facility would not be in public interest, the landowners could not be deprived of their property without lawful acquisition and compensation.
The appeal arose from a civil suit dismissed in 2019, where the plaintiffs had sought declaration of title, possession, demolition of construction and injunction in respect of 3.566 hectares of land at Village Sikola, Durg. The land had been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, but the landowners consistently maintained that lawful possession was never taken by the State. They also relied on a 2011 appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, which had set aside an earlier finding of possession in favour of the State and directed restoration of their names in revenue records.
During the hearing, the court examined the complex history of proceedings under the Urban Ceiling law, subsequent writ petitions, appeals and revision attempts by the State, as well as the fact that a full-fledged bus stand had been constructed on the disputed land by local authorities after significant public expenditure. The bench noted that even if serious questions existed over the legality of the manner in which the land was taken, the completed public project could not simply be undone at this stage.
Relying on a consistent line of Supreme Court precedents, the High Court reaffirmed that the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution is not merely statutory but also a human right. The judgment underlined that the State cannot occupy private land for a public purpose without following due process and paying fair compensation, regardless of whether the land has already been put to public use.
At the same time, the court declined to restore physical possession or order demolition of the bus stand, observing that such a direction would cause disproportionate harm to public interest and the public exchequer. Instead, the relief was moulded by directing the authorities to initiate lawful acquisition proceedings and determine compensation payable to the landowners in accordance with applicable law, taking into account the relevant date for valuation.
The ruling strikes a balance between protecting individual property rights and preserving essential public infrastructure. It sends a clear message that while courts may avoid unsettling completed public projects, the State cannot escape its constitutional obligation to compensate citizens when their land is taken without following the procedure established by law.
Case Reference : FA No. 128 of 2019, Ramanuj Sharma S/o Late Gajanand Sharma and Others vs The Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Its Commissioner, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh and Others
Counsels : For Appellants/Plaintiffs : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 / Defendants No. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 / Defendant No. 3 : : Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate.
