1 2025:CGHC:37824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4058 of 2025 Pintu Tekam S/o Ram Kishun Tekam Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Rameshwarpur, Village Panchayat Rameshwarpur, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.O. And P.S. Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Collector Surajpur, District Surajpur, C.G. 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Surajpur, Forest Division, Surajpur, District Surajpur, C.G. 5 - Forest Range Officer Pratappur, District Surajpur, C.G. 6 - Circle Forest Officer Khadgawan, Forest Division Surajpur, District Surajpur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 2 01.08.2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners with following relief(s): “10.1 issue notices to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 set-aside the impugned letter/order dated 03.05.2025 vide Annexure P-1 issued by the respondent No. 5. 10.3 direct the respondent No. 2 to 4 to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after proper enquiry by competent committee any order may be passed in respect of the Van Adhikar Patta granted in his favour. 10.4 direct the respondent No. 2 & 5 to make proper demarcation of the land allotted to the petitioner in accordance with law and further be pleased to allow the petitioner to cultivate the land allotted to him. 10.5 grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which deemed fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner is a member of scheduled tribe who was granted Van Adhikar Patta after following the due process of law in the year 2010-11 as per the scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 bearing compartment No. PF2558 measuring area 0.400 hectare situated at village Rameshwarpur. It is submitted that in the month of May 2025 the present petitioner has 3 moved an application for demarcation of the land allotted to him in Sushashan Tihar commenced by the State Government and in turn the respondent No. 6 came at the spot and on the basis of opinion given by some villagers prepared a spot Panchnama in which it is held that the forest Patta granted in favour of the petitioner is doubtful, therefore, an enquiry ought to have been conducted. Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 has sent the letter alongwith spot Panchnama to the respondent No. 5 who in turn made a recommendation vide impugned letter dated 03.05.2025 before the respondent No. 4 for deletion of the application after decision from portal and based on the said recommendation the petitioner apprehends that his forest Patta may be cancelled at any time by the respondent authorities without proper enquiry and being heard to the petitioner and presently the respondent No. 4 & 5 are not permitting the petitioner to cultivate the land allotted to him. 3. Learned State Counsel opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 03.05.2025 and it is ordered to remand the matter back to the DFO Surajpur for making proper enquiry with regard to genuineness of patta and thereafter, concerned authorities shall pass an 4 appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant