1 / 3 2025:CGHC:23036 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3042 of 2022 Ashish Sharma S/o Late Devdhar Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/06/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed against the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not providing any compensation to the petitioner towards acquisition of his ancestral land by the Respondent No.1 department. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner is that petitioner’s ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.06.12 10:43:25 +0530 2 / 3 father namely Devdhar Sharma has purchased the land bearing Khasra No.2 admeasuring area 2.14 hectares situated at village Hathboi, R.I.C. Gariyaband, Tahsil and District Gariyaband through a registered sale deed dated 01/02/1997 from the previous owner Gokul son of Palt and Lachchhani Bai wd/o Palt and on the basis of the registered sale deed the name of Devdhar Sharma was recorded in the relevant revenue records and after the death of the father of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner has been recorded. It is the case of the petitioner that no compensation has been paid to the petitioner on account of acquisition of land. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land, therefore, he is entitled for the compensation, however, till date despite acquisition of his land no compensation has been given to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the land of the petitioner has not been acquired by the department and by Gazette notification dated 27/04/1987 various lands including the land of the petitioner were included as reserved forest wherein the land belonging to the village Hathboi was also included in Protected Forest and before the issuance of such notification a settlement proceeding was carried out wherein objections were invited from the concerned affected persons and the petitioner never raised any objection pursuant to the notification. Furthermore, the notification 3 / 3 was issued in the year 1987 and the petitioner claims to have acquired the ownership right of the disputed land in the year 1997. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner being the successor in ownership cannot be allowed to raise any objection as the land in question was already declared as protected forest in the year 1987. Therefore, it is prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. From perusal of the documents it is apparent that the petitioner purchased the land in the year 1997 and prior to that the land in question was included as reserved forest and the petitioner did not raise any objection at that relevant point of time. Earlier the petitioner had also preferred a writ petition bearing WPC No.1163 of 2014 which was dismissed by this Court as misconceived and now after lapse of more than 25 years the instant petition has been filed. Therefore, considering the fact that prior to ownership of the petitioner the land was included as forest land and no objection was raised by the petitioner or the previous owner at that relevant point of time, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 7. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu