Dismissed¶8

Rambhau Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2026WPS/8650/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized occupation of government quarters after transfer; penal rent notice without show-cause notice; House Allotment Rules, 2000 — Rule 17(1), (6), Explanation, Rule 28, Rule 29; payment of licence fee no defence; retention of government accommodation by suspended officer; eviction only per procedure prescribed by law; Deputy Collector; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPS No. 8650 of 2022; Justice Sachin Singh Rajput; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner failed to make out a case that he had moved any application seeking retention of the allotted house despite his transfer to Rajnandgaon and thereafter to Kanker. ¶6

Rambhau Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the Notice/Letter dated 1/10/2021 (Annexure P-1) imposing penal rent of Rs. 779,110/- and giving only seven days to vacate, issued without prior show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing, is legally untenable and liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The submission that no show-cause notice was issued prior to the issuance of Annexure P/1 is rejected at the threshold, as the relevant facts in the case are not in dispute.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner failed to make out a case that he had moved any application seeking retention of the allotted house despite his transfer to Rajnandgaon and thereafter to Kanker.

¶6

Key takeaways

A Government servant has the right to occupy a government accommodation only in accordance with the applicable rules and law; mere payment of licence fee does not confer any legal right to continue in occupation once such occupation becomes unauthorized.ratio¶6
The petitioner's occupation of the government-allotted house became unauthorized after his transfer, and the State authorities could have initiated appropriate proceedings against him under the applicable law governing unauthorized occupation of government accommodation.ratio¶6
The petitioner had no subsisting legal right or justification to retain the said accommodation, and the Court finds no merit in the writ petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Justice Sachin Singh Rajput), WPS No. 8650 of 2022, decided 06.02.2026 — Unauthorized occupation of government accommodation; penal rent notice. A suspended Deputy Collector, allotted Government house No. F-3, Devendra Nagar, Raipur on 24.01.2015, was transferred to Rajnandgaon on 13.07.2017 (relieved 28.07.2017) and thence to Kanker on 17.12.2017, and was suspended on 13.06.2018. Having received no accommodation at his transferred stations, he continued to occupy the Raipur house paying licence fee. By communication dated 01.10.2021 (Annexure P/1), issued without show-cause notice, penal rent of Rs. 7,79,110/- was imposed with seven days to vacate; he vacated on 26.12.2022. Invoking Rules 17(1), (6), Explanation, 28 and 29 of the House Allotment Rules, 2000, the Court held that his occupation became unauthorized upon transfer, that mere payment of licence fee confers no right to continue occupation, that he had made no application for retention, and that he had no subsisting legal right or justification to retain the premises; the absence of show-cause notice was rejected at the threshold as the facts were undisputed. Writ petition dismissed.

2026:CGHC:6895

NAFR

HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI

Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2026.03.03 18:43:39 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 8650 of 2022

¶8

1 - Rambhau Dewangan Deputy Collector Kanker (Suspended) , Aged About 54 Years, S/o Shri Mannu Lal Dewangan , R/o Headquarter Commissioner Office Jagdalpur Baster District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Sampada Sanchalanalay (Home Department) Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of General Administration Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretory, Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Trasury Officer Kanker Collector Office Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani and Ms. Aditi Diwan, Adovcate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. GA

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

06.02.2026

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s);

¶18

“10.1 To call for the entire records pertaining to the petitioner's case for the kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

¶19

10.2 To quash the Notice/Letter dated 1/10/2021 (Annexure-P-1)

¶20

10.3 To issue Mandamus directing the respondents not dispossess the petitioner from the Govt. house No. F-3 situated at Officers Colony Devendra Nagar Raipur.

¶21

¶22

10.4 To direct the respondents to take a decision on the issue within a specified time of 30 days from the date of the order.

¶23

10.5 Cost of petition may be allowed.

¶24

10.6 Grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Deputy Collector at the relevant time with the respondents and was posted at Raipur. A Government house No. F-3 situated in Devendra Nagar, Raipur was allotted to him on 24th January 2015 and since then he had been occupying that house. On 13th July 2017, the petitioner was transferred to Rajnandgaon and in compliance with the transfer order, he was relieved on 28th July 2017. However, upon his posting to Rajnandgaon, no government accommodation was allotted to him. On 13th June 2018, the petitioner was placed under suspension. As no government house was allotted to him in Rajnandgaon, he continued to occupy the government house at Raipur and continued paying the license fee as fixed by the Government. On 26th December 2022, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner vacated the premises. The petitioner further submits that, without any prior show-cause notice a communication dated 1st October 2021 (Annexure P/1) was received by him, indicating that a penal rent of Rs. 779,110/had been imposed for occupying the house, with only 7 days’ time given to vacate the premises. This communication is challenged before this Court. The petitioner argues that, as he was not allotted any accommodation in Rajnandgaon, and in light of the fact that Annexure P/1 was issued without granting him an opportunity of hearing, it is legally untenable and should be set aside. The petitioner contends that, being under suspension, he was entitled to retain the government accommodation at Raipur. The petitioner has expressed his willingness to vacate the accommodation within one month as of 20th December 2022.

¶26

Opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Rajnandgaon on 13th July 2017 and was

¶27

¶28

relieved on 28th July 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred from Rajnandgaon to District Kanker on 17th December 2017 and was relieved from Rajnandgaon on the same date. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 13th June 2018 while performing his duties at Kanker. The respondents argue that the petitioner continued to occupy the government house at Raipur without any express permission from the State Government. According to Rule 17(1), (6), Explanation, Rule 28, and Rule 29 of the House Allotment Rules, 2000, the petitioner was not entitled to retain the government accommodation.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶30

There is no dispute regarding the fact that the government house F-3 was allotted to the petitioner when he was in service at Raipur. He was transferred to Rajnandgaon on 13th July 2017 and was relieved on 28^th July, 2017. Later, the petitioner was transferred from Rajnandgaon to District Kanker on 17th December 2017 and was relieved from Rajnandgaon to Kanker on 17th December 2017. There is also no dispute that the petitioner continued to occupy the allotted house at Raipur despite being transferred to Rajnandgaon and subsequently to Kanker. In this regard, Rule 17(1), (6), Explanation, Rule 28, and Rule 29 of the House Allotment Rules, 2000, are relevant and are quoted below for clarity:

¶31

“17. शा�सकी�य अधि�की�रि�य� / की्቞�चा�रि�य� की� आवा�स �खने� की� अने�्቞धि� (1) किकीस� अधि�की�� एवा� की्቞�चा�� की� भो�पा�ल स� अन्य्ቔ स्था�ने��त�ण हो�ने� , स�वा�किनेवा'� हो�ने� , त्य�गपा्ቔ दे�ने� , स�वा� स� पा'थाकी की�ने� एवा� अन्य किकीन्हो� की��ण� स� आवा�स �खने� की� धिलय� अनेधि�की' त हो�ने� स� आबं�कि,�� की� यहो दे�कियत्वा हो�ग� किकी वाहो उसकी� स.चाने� स�चा�लकी , स�पादे� स�चा�लने�लय की� एकी स቎ኋ�हो की� अ�दे� दे� , अन्यथा� शा�सकी�य आवा�स की� उसस� बं�जा�� दे� की� दे�ग�ने� दे� स� ल�यस1स शा�ल्की वास.ल किकीय� जा�एग� वा आबं�,ने किने�स्त की� किदेय� जा�य�ग�।

¶32

(6) आवा�स �खने� की� अने�ሺኋ� ቚኋ�቎ኋ ने की�ने� की� ቝኌस्थाकित ्቞1 कीब्जा� अनेधि�की' त ्቞�ने� जा�एग� औ� ल�यस�न्स शा�ल्की बं�जा�� दे� की� दे�ग�ने� दे� स� वास.ल किकीय� जा�एग� तथा� किनेष्की�सने की� की�य�वा�हो� की� जा�एग�।

¶33

¶34

स्पाቖኍ�की�ण (1) शा�सकी�य आवा�स पा� आबं�कि,त� की� आधि�पात्य उस� त��ख स� स्቞�቎ኋ ्቞�ने� जा�एग� धिजास त��ख स� उस� स्था�ने��त�ण हो�ने� , स�वा�किनेवा'� हो�ने� अथावा� पादेच्य�त की� दे�ने� की� की��ण की�य�्቞�्ሹ की� किदेय� गय� हो�।

¶35

(2) स्था�ने��त�ण की� बं�दे शा�सकी�य आवा�स अने�ሺኋ� की� किबंने� अपाने� कीब्जा� ्቞1 बंने�ए �खने� शा�सकी�य स�वाकी� की� आचा�ण किनेय्቞� की� किवारू्ቍ हो�ग�।

¶36

(3) आवा�स ��ण की�ने� की� अने�ሺኋ� चा�हो� गई अने�ሺኋ� की� पा.ण� ल�यस�न्स शा�ल्की अकि@्቞ जा्቞� की�ने� की� उपा��न्त हो� आवा�स �खने� की� अने�ሺኋ� की� आदे�शा जा�� किकीए जा�ए�ग�। अकि@्቞ ��किशा की� बंAकी डा�फ्, आवा�देने पा्ቔ की� स�था स�ल्ሿ किकीय� जा�ने� आवाश्यकी होF। अने�ሺኋ� ने किदेय� जा�ने� की� ቝኌस्थाकित ्቞1 डाG�फ्, वा�पास किकीय� जा�एग�।

¶37

28. अन े �ध ि �क' ी त आध ि �प ा त ् य�� क ी � क ि व ा र ूቍ ् अन�श े ा �सन े �त ् क ी क ी �य�व ा �ह ो � -

¶38

स�बं�धि�त की�य��लय ቚኋ्቞�ख य� आहो�ण एवा� स�किवात�ण अधि�की�� ቛኋ�� -

¶39

(1) जाबं भो� किकीस� शा�सकी�य स�वाकी की� एकी स्था�ने पा� स्था�ने��त�ण किकीय� जा�ए त� स्था�ने��त�ण आदे�शा की� ቚኋकित स�पादे� स�चा�लकी की� आवाश्यकी रूपा स� पा'ኋ᭙��किकीत की� जा�य�। यकिदे किकीस� शा�सकी�य स�वाकी की� बं�� ्቞1 स�पादे� स�चा�लकी की� स.चाने� ቚኋ�቎ኋ हो� किकी उसकी� स्था�ने��त�ण हो� जा�ने� की� बं�दे भो� शा�सकी�य आवा�स ग'हो ख�ल� नेहोJ किकीय� होF औ� उस� अपाने� आधि�पात्य ्቞1 �खने� की� धिलए स्ቌ्቞ ቚኋ�धि�की�� स� अने�ሺኋ� नेहोJ कि्቞ल� होF त� ऐस� शा�सकी�य स�वाकी की� किवारू्ቍ अने�शा�सने�त ् की की�य�वा�हो� की�ने� की� धिसफा�रि�शा की� जा�वा�ग�।

¶40

(2) स�बं�धि�त किवाभो�ग / की�य��लय ቚኋ्቞�ख य� आहो�ण एवा� स�किवात�ण अधि�की�� ቛኋ�� ऐस� शा�सकी�य स�वाकी की� स�वा�किनेवा'� हो�ने� पा� य� उस� स�वा� स� पा'थाकी किकीए जा�ने� पा� य� त्य�गपा्ቔ स्वा�की�� की�ने� पा� ऐस� आदे�शा की� ቚኋकित स�पादे� स�चा�लकी की� पा'ኋ᭙��किकीत की� जा�एग�।

¶41

29. अन े ध ि �क' ी त आध ि �प ा त ् य�� क ी � क ि व ा र ूቍ ् ब ं �द े खल� क ी �य�व ा �ह ो �

¶42

(1) इने किनेय्቞� की� उपाबं � � की� अने�स�� किकीस� आवा�स पा� किकीस� व्यकि्ሹ की� आधि�पात्य अनेधि�की' त हो�ने� अथावा� ��ज्य शा�सने ቛኋ�� किकीस� व्यकि्ሹ की� आधि�पात्य अनेधि�की' त घो�किRत की�ने� की� ቝኌस्थाकित ्቞1 , ऐस� अनेधि�की' त अधि�पात्य�� की� किवारू्ቍ आबं�,ने अधि�की�� ቛኋ�� छ��सगढ़ ल�की पारि�स� ( बं�देखल� ) अधि�किनेय्቞ , 1974 की� उपाबं � � की� अ��ने की�य�वा�हो� की�ने� हो�त� स्ቌ्቞ ቚኋ�धि�की�� की� रि�पा�,� की� जा�एग�।

¶43

(2) अनेधि�की' त आधि�पात्य की� अवाधि� की� धिलए बं�जा�� दे� की� दे�ग�ने� दे� स� शा�ल्की वास.ल की�ने� की� की�य�वा�हो� की� जा�एग�। "

¶44

The petitioner has failed to make out a case that he had moved any application seeking retention of the allotted house despite his transfer to Rajnandgaon and thereafter to Kanker. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no show cause notice was issued prior to the issuance of Annexure P/1 is liable to be

¶45

¶46

rejected at the threshold, as the relevant facts in the present case are not in dispute. A Government servant has the right to occupy a government accommodation only in accordance with the applicable rules and law. In the present case, despite having been transferred and having no authority under law to continue in occupation of the allotted premises, the petitioner continued to occupy the said government accommodation. Mere payment of licence fee does not confer any legal right to continue in occupation once such occupation becomes unauthorized. The fact remains that the petitioner’s occupation of the government-allotted house became unauthorized after his transfer. The State authorities could have initiated appropriate proceedings against him under the applicable law governing unauthorized occupation of government accommodation.

¶47

From the record, it appears that after issuance of Annexure P/1, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition wherein it was observed that he shall not be evicted forcibly except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. However, this Court does not find that the petitioner had any subsisting legal right or justification to retain the said accommodation. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition.

¶48

Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶51

Judge

¶52

H.Ansari

Rambhau Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambhau Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Singh Vs Sukhdev

Mohammad Javed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chowa Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K.S. Gendre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs Maheshwar Soni

Ajeet Singh Vs Savitri Davi And Anr.