1 2025:CGHC:32208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3565 of 2025 Nure Alam S/o Mohmuddin, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Ganjar, Th. And Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Collector, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The District Forest Officer, Department Of Forest, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The Perimeter Assistant (Parichhetra Sahayak), Nawadih, Department Of Forest, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh). ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/07/2025 Heard. 1. By way of these petitions, the petitioner is challenging the impugned notice dated 21.06.2025 issued by Respondent no. 5 after registering the respective forest criminal case dated 19.06.2025, whereby the petitioner has been asked to remove the encroachment over the Forest land under Kachh No. P-953, rakba No.0.038 hectare within three days from the date of issuance of the notice to the petitioners. Hence pleaded to set aside the impugned notice dated 21.06.2025 issued by respondent no. 5 and direct the respondent authorities to give proper opportunity of hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav submits that the impugned notice dated 21.06.2025 issued by Respondent no. 5 has been issued without following the due procedure as contemplated under the Forest Act as well as the principles of natural justice. The respondent authorities without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner had issued the impugned notice which is illegal and contrary to law. 3. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State/respondents opposes the relief(s) sought by the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner is habitual encroachers of forest land. Earlier also some forest criminal case was registered against him on 3 29th of November, 2018 and he was fined. Then also the petitioner has again encroached the forest land at some other place. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. On bare perusal of the facts and circumstances of the cases, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner is habitual encroachers. Moreover, there seems to be no good ground, as to why the present petitions should be allowed. Hence, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition. It deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit all the relevant documents and raise all the objections before the concerned District Forest Officer on 20th August, 2025 and after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties, pass an appropriate order. 7. Meanwhile, it is directed that no coercive steps/actions shall be taken against the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid liberty, the present petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant