Case at a Glance
Ten Scheduled Tribe petitioners who had lived for decades near Tailing Dam No. 1 of NMDC at Bacheli, Dantewada challenged their eviction and the demolition of their homes after part of the dam collapsed in August 2025 and an IIT Bombay report found active seepage. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held that public safety overrides claims of unapproved occupancy, that occupation of Reserve Forest land gives no enforceable right to resist eviction or demand permanent rehabilitation, and that the eviction and demolition orders suffered from no jurisdictional error. The petition was dismissed, but the State was directed to provide continuous medical and nutritional support, to let families stay in temporary NMDC accommodation until the end of the monsoon, and to disburse balance compensation expeditiously.
The petitioners, members of Scheduled Tribes with aged dependants and minor children, said they had lived for about seven decades near Tailing Dam No. 1 at Badebacheli/Bacheli in Dantewada district. On 02.08.2025 part of the dam collapsed, and NMDC wrote on 02.08.2025 and 06.08.2025 seeking removal of the occupants. Revenue proceedings were dropped on 10.11.2025 because the land was Forest Department land (Reserve Forest Land No. 1844). Fresh proceedings were started on 30.04.2026 under Section 152 BNSS, 2023 (public nuisance); an eviction order followed on 04.06.2026, a demolition memo on 13.06.2026, and demolition on Sunday, 14.06.2026. Requisition orders of 18.06.2026 and 19.06.2026 allotted NMDC quarters to the displaced families.
The petitioners argued that eviction during the monsoon without rehabilitation violated Articles 14 and 21 and Forest Rights Act safeguards, and that pregnant women had been housed unsuitably. The State said they were encroachers on Reserve Forest land, eviction was needed for public safety, and temporary shelter had been provided under Section 65 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. NMDC did not oppose the evacuation but challenged the requisition of its quarters, arguing that neither Section 152 BNSS nor Section 65 of the Disaster Management Act authorised allotting corporate property and that no delegation under Section 69 had been shown.
The Key Question Before the Court
Were the eviction and demolition of tribal families living near a seeping NMDC tailing dam on Reserve Forest land lawful, and are the families entitled to permanent rehabilitation?
Human Life First, but Temporary Shelter Must Stay Temporary
The Court held that the State is bound to protect human life and that public safety overrides claims of unapproved occupancy. With the IIT Bombay report confirming active seepage at the base of the dam, the decision to evacuate “cannot, by itself, be characterised as arbitrary or unreasonable.” Since the land was Reserve Forest land and no lease, title or recognised forest right existed, the petitioners had no enforceable right to resist eviction or to demand permanent rehabilitation, and the eviction order of 04.06.2026 and demolition memo of 13.06.2026 revealed no jurisdictional error.
On NMDC’s objection, the Court observed that “a temporary requisition requires a valid order passed by the competent authority,” but held it premature to decide the validity of the requisition orders and left the questions under Sections 65, 66 and 69 of the Disaster Management Act open. The accommodation was temporary, until the end of the monsoon, and created no permanent right; because the families had entered on the strength of allotment orders, no finding of illegal trespass was recorded.
What the Court Actually Held
- Public safety overrides claims of unauthorised occupancy near a hazardous tailing dam; the evacuation was not arbitrary.
- Occupation of Reserve Forest land without lease, title or recognised forest right gives no enforceable right to resist eviction or claim permanent rehabilitation.
- The eviction order and demolition memo were upheld and the writ petition dismissed; the validity of the requisition of NMDC quarters was left open.
- The State must provide continuous medical, health and nutritional support, must not dispossess families from humanitarian accommodation until the end of the monsoon (15.10.2026), and must disburse balance compensation expeditiously after verification.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It shows how courts balance the right to shelter against imminent risk to life from industrial structures.
- It clarifies that Forest Rights Act protection depends on a recognised right, not long residence alone.
- It flags open legal questions about requisitioning a public-sector company’s property under the Disaster Management Act.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Affected Families
- Pursue recognition of forest rights through the statutory process; the Court found none recognised here.
- Claim the balance compensation, which the Court ordered to be paid expeditiously after identity verification.
- Medical and nutritional support for pregnant women and occupants of temporary shelters is a binding direction.
For Counsel
- In safety-driven evictions, focus on the adequacy of interim shelter and compensation rather than resisting evacuation outright.
- Requisition of corporate property under Sections 65, 66 and 69 of the Disaster Management Act remains an open question.
- Place expert material, such as structural or seepage reports, on record early; it weighed heavily here.
Key Takeaways
- Evacuation near a seeping tailing dam was upheld as a public-safety measure.
- No permanent rehabilitation right arose from occupying Reserve Forest land.
- Temporary accommodation in NMDC quarters creates no permanent right.
- Medical care and balance compensation were ordered for the displaced families.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why were the tribal families not given permanent rehabilitation?
The Court found they were in unauthorised occupation of Reserve Forest land with no lease, title or recognised forest right, so no enforceable right to permanent rehabilitation arose.
What is a tailing dam?
It is an embankment that stores mining waste (tailings). Here an IIT Bombay report found active seepage at its base after a partial collapse in August 2025.
Was NMDC’s challenge to the requisition of its quarters decided?
No. The Court said it was premature to decide it and left the jurisdictional questions under the Disaster Management Act open.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court put human safety ahead of long but unrecognised occupation, while insisting that the State look after the displaced families’ health and pay them what is due.
Practical takeaway: Long residence alone does not create a right to stay on forest land; families should pursue statutory recognition of forest rights and compensation claims, and authorities must back evacuations with humane interim support.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com