1 2025:CGHC:14907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2980 of 2022 1 - Ganpat Ram S/o Late Dhirsai, Aged About 68 Years Caste Harijan, R/o Village Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Deptt. Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - The Upper Commissioner Division Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District Koriya Baikunthpur (Chhattisgarh). 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer, Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Naib Tahsildar Patna, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 6 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Sarpanch, Village Panchayat Patna, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. 8 - The Secretary, Village Panchayat Patna, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelawal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/03/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 27/04/2022 (Annexure P/1) with further direction to reinstate the order dated 27/10/2021. 10.2 That, a command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to produce the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner and direction may kindly be 3 given to hold the enquiry against the delinquent officer and to punish him in accordance with law for doing the mischievous act. 10.3 That, a direction may kindly be issued to the respondent-authorities to shift the site for the construction of Gothan/cattle asylum to some other government land which are free from the possession and nuisance in the village. 10.4 Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a permanent resident of village Patna, Tehsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya, (C.G.) and since the time of his forefathers he has been in constant possession of the government land bearing Survey No. 599/2, area 1.017 hectare for last 70-80 years. The forefathers/predecessors of the petitioner had occupied the said land for seven to eight decades and they have been cultivating the land for their livelihood, on a portion of the subject land residential house for the purpose of cohabitation of their family members. The occupied government land belongs to forest department and has been categorized as “Chote Jhaad Ka Jungle”, so it is forest land to provide forest rights on the land to 4 the traditional forest dwellers and other eligible occupants under the act of 2006. As such the revenue records also reveal that the subject land has been possessed by the petitioner and the petitioner has eligibility of getting the land allotted in his favour but instead of proceeding for allotment the Tehsildar Baikunthpur initiated the proceeding for the removal of so called encroachment of the petitioner. The proceeding for removal of encroachment, the Tehsildar has passed the order of ejectment on 26.12.2020 under Section 248 of CGLRC. In the meantime, the Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur has passed the resolution for construction of Cow shed on the subject land without following the laid down procedure for the same given in the circular of the State under the MGGB guidelines dated 05.02.2019, whereas the clear direction has been given that the cow shed has not to be constructed on any encroached land and the land should be without any hurdle, encroachment and nuisance, vide Clause No. 7 of the guideline dated 05.02.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed this petition against the eviction of order dated 26.12.2020 passed by the Tehsildar but in the said writ petition the liberty was given to prefer appeal before the competent authority. He further submist that the first appeal was preferred before the SDO, Baikunthpur but the said appeal was also dismissed for no rhyme and reason. 5 Thereafter against the second appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Surguja Division in which the interim relief of stay against the eviction was granted by the Commissioner. He further submits that vide order dated 27.10.2021 the said order was subsequently vacated at the instance of the SDO who had moved the application without informing the petitioner and had made the request for vacating the interim order of stay. He further submits that the said application was filed by the SDO surreptitiously before the Commissioner on 20.04.2022. Thus prior to the fixed date that was already given to 25.05.2022 for hearing of the matter but the case file was taken out on 27.04.2022 and the Commissioner vacated the interim order in a surreptitious manner which is highly doubtful and against the doctrines of law. He further submits that interim order was vacated on 27.04.2022 without issuing notice and without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the case was fixed for 25.05.2022 before the Commissioner for the next hearing but prior to that an ex-parte hearing has taken place before the Commissioner and the stay order was vacated. He further submits that the petitioner had filed an application seeking correction of the revenue records because earlier the name of Dheeru @ Dheeran the father of the petitioner was being entered in the entire records occupant of the land but after 6 his death the name of the present petitioner was not substituted as occupant. He further submits that an application was submitted before the Collector, Koriya seeking allotment/settlement of the subject land in the name of the petitioner by the grant of lease and the said application was filed way back on 11.11.2021. Thereafter under the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 the application was moved by the petitioner to the Nayab Tehsildar for the grant of forest lease. Pursuance of the said application the Nayab Tehsildar has received the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has made his all efforts to secure his long possession and for the grant of government lease but the revenue authorities without looking to the fact that the claim for allotment of forest lease is already pending before the Revenue authorities but they have proceeded for the removal of settled possession of the petitioner under Section 248 of Land Revenue Code which is highly unwarranted and not sustainable in the eye of law simply because there are specific provisions under the Indian Forest act to take action for the removal of encroachment and the exclusive jurisdiction is vested with the forest authorities to take the initiative and action for the removal of the encroachment but it is none of the business of the revenue authorities to poke their nose in the 7 affairs of the forest authorities. The proceeding being held by the Tehsildar and other revenue authorities of removal of encroachment is in the excess of jurisdiction and abuse of the process of law. The proposal/claim of the petitioner for the allotment/settlement of the land as well as for the grant of lease is already lying pending with the Collector and the Tehsildar then parallely the proceeding of removal of possession should not be held to defeat the claim of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner deserves protection of his settled possession of considerable period and he also deserves consideration for the allotment of the land and lease in his favour for the welfare of his family and until the claim of the petitioner is finalized by the competent authority under The Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006; he should not be evicted from the subject land and premises in the interest of justice. Since the petitioner has already moved an application for settlement of these lands in his favour, however, without considering this aspect the Tahsilar has passed an order for removal of encroachment as aggrieved by the erring officials and thereafter the matter stabled upto the Commissioner and the Commissioner without considering the fact has directed for removal of the encroachment made by the petitioner. 8 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the authorities concerned who have to pass order in respect of settlement of land is directed to consider the application of the petitioner in a pragmatic manner and to pass appropriate orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and till the disposal of the application for settlement of land no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. The concerned authorities are directed to decide the application within an outer limits of three months from the date of production of this order. 7. The petitioner is also directed to submit copy of this order to the competent authorities within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat