1 2025:CGHC:7039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 779 of 2020 1. Narendra Dhruv S/o Bisambhar Aged About 48 Years Gond Tribal, R/o Village Pandripani, Tehsil Charama, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh 2. Haldhar Chandravanshi S/o Ghanshyam Aged About 64 Years Gond Tribal, R/o Village Pandripani, Tehsil Charama, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Dev., Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Department Of Forests, Chhattisgarh Government, Through Principal Secretary Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division- Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4. The Collector District Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5. President, Forest Rights Committee, Village Pandripani, Tehsil Charama, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Akash Kundu, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07/02/2025 Heard on admission. 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.(i) Direct the Respondent Authorities to immediately stop all digging and construction activities on the land under the possession of the Petitioners until proper Forest clearances and Gram Sabha approvals have been obtained. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.(ii) Direct the Respondent Authorities to settle the pending claim of the Petitioner no. 1 under section 3(1)(a) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act. 10.(iii) Direct the Respondent Authorities to compensate the Petitioners for the losses incurred by them due to their illegal digging and construction activities, and to legally acquire the land under their possession, if required for any development activity, by the procedures outlined in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013. 10.(iv) Any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may feel fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Akash Kundu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that forest right was granted over Survey Nos. 513 and 533 admeasuring 0.80 hectares situated at Village Pandripani, Tehsil Charama, District Kanker to the petitioners in the year 2009. Mr. Akash Kundu would further submit that the petitioners are in possession of some part of Survey Nos. 190 and 191, the land adjacent to the land allotted to the petitioners. He would contend that the respondent authorities without affording any opportunity of hearing tried to dispossess the petitioners. He would further contend that the application for the grant of forest rights over some part of Survey Nos. 190 and 191 is pending consideration before the respondent authorities and the same has not been decided yet. He would also submit that the respondent authorities and Gram Panchayat have taken a decision to construct Gothaan over Survey Nos. 190 and 191 without obtaining forest clearance. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to decide the pending application of the petitioners for the grant of the lease. 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the petitioners have no right. He would further submit that the lease of 0.80 acre of land was granted to the petitioners in the year 2009 and without any authority of law, the petitioners encroached over Survey Nos. 190 and 191. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the application for the grant of forest rights pertaining to Survey No. 190 is still pending consideration before the forest officials, therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners had no right until forest right is granted in their favour and the respondent authorities rightly treated the petitioners as encroachers. 6. As the application of the petitioners for the grant of forest rights is still pending consideration before the forest officials, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of with a direction to forest officials to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act, 2006. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. 8. Interim order granted on 28.02.2020 is hereby vacated. 9. The dwelling house of the petitioners, if any, shall not be demolished till any decision is taken by forest officials. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti