1 / 3 2025:CGHC:3815 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 440 of 2025 1 - Ram Sai Yadav S/o Late Devnandan Yadav Aged About 77 Years R/o Village- Sonari, Tehsil- Sonhat And District- Korea (C.G.) 2 - Virendra Vikram Chand Yadav S/o Ram Sai Yadav Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Sonari, Tehsil- Sonhat And District- Korea (C.G.) 3 - Nar Nahar Yadav S/o Ram Sai Yadav Aged About 51 Years R/o Village - Sonari, Tehsil- Sonhat And District- Korea (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Office Of Deputy Forest Officer, North Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 4 - Office Of Forest Range Officer, Devgarh, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) 2 / 3 For Petitioners : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Adv. For Respondents/ State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 22/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the notices dated 21/09/2022 and 22/06/2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.4/ Forest Range Officer, Devgarh, District Koriya whereby the petitioners have been asked to remove the encroachment made by them in excess of land which has been previously exempted i.e. 0.920 hectare, within a period of 15 days. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not encroached over the land which has been alleged in the said notices whereas they are having possession only over the land measuring 0.920. hectare. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the aforesaid notices have been issued to the petitioners but still they have not responded to that notices of removal. As the petitioners have encroached over the land in excess which has been permitted to them i.e. 0.920 hectare, there is no illegality in the issuance of notice. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 / 3 5. From perusal of the notices of removal of encroachment which have been issued to the petitioners alleging that they have encroached over the forest land in excess which has been permitted to them i.e. 0.920 hectare, if the petitioners have encroached only land in excess of land which has been permissible under the Circular dated 05/02/2000, there is no illegality in issuance of notice of removal of encroachment dated 21/09/2022 and 22/06/2023 (Annexure P/1). 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to apprise the authority about the fact that they have not encroached in excess of land which is permissible under the Circular dated 05/02/2000. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar