1 2025:CGHC:19155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2096 of 2025 1 - Nakul Yadav S/o Shri Ram Prasad Aged About 57 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Madrashipara, Antagarh, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - The Collector District Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh). 3 - Tehsildar Antagarh, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/04/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned Order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Tehsildar Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) by which the petitioner has been illegally and maliciously directed to leave the settled possession of his House cum Hotel (alleged area 0.0077 hectares) built in the forest land situated in Village Antagarh, P.H. No. 08, bearing Khasra No. 700, as it blatantly violates the fundamental rights as well as the constitutional rights of the Petitioner. 2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the party respondents to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking any adverse action against the present petitioner. 3. Cost of the Petition. 4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also be kindly granted in favor of the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned notice has been passed on 24.04.2025 whereby the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner 3 while running a temporary tea shop, he was directed to remove the encroachment within a period of 2 days, as in the order itself, it is stated that vide order dated 26.03.2025 a removal warrant has already been issued against the petitioner. He further submits that within some short period even if any order is passed it would be not appropriate to remove the encroachment. He further submits that the land in question belongs to Forest Land as such the Tahsildar is not having power and authority to pass order to remove the encroachment. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that they will verify the matter and if it will come within the Forest Zone then the appropriate proceedings will be initiated by the Forest Officer. He further submits that the petitioner is an encroacher which is an admitted fact as the petitioner has not made any application/ representation along with supported documents showing that the he is the owner of the said property. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Forest Authorities as well the Revenue Authorities to see whether the land in which the encroachment has been made belongs to the Forest Authorities or the Revenue Authorities. In case, it is found that the land belongs to Forest Officer, the concerned Forest Officer i.e. DFO, Uttar Bastar, Kanker is directed to give 7 days prior notice to the 4 petitioner and thereafter if the reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory it be removed forthwith. 5. It is made clear that the concerned authorities are directed to complete the proceedings within a period of 15 days. 6. Till the decision of the Forest/ Revenue Authorities the petitioner may not be removed from his illegal construction. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat