1 2025:CGHC:38983 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4184 of 2025 Hulsu Oraon S/o Kusa Oraon Aged About 52 Years ( Wrongly Mentioned As Pusna In The Notice ) R/o -Village Adhaura ( Wrongly Mentioned As Bhanaura In The Notice ), Police Station And Tahsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Collector Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 4 - Sub Divisional Forest Officer ( Dfo), Balrampur Forest Division, Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 5 - Sub- Divisional Officer ( Revenue ) Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). 6 - Forest Range Officer Forest Range Balrampur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj ( C.G. ). --- Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following relief(s) :- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 22.06.2025 issued by the Respondent Forest Department in relation to the land situated in Compartment No. P-3394, Village Bairdeeh, Police Station Chando, Tahsil District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) being illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and without authority of law. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent department to consider and decide the application of the petitioner filed before the them for grant of Van AdhikarPatta in respect of said within some stipulated period. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present petition is being filed by the Petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus against arbitrary action of respondents. The subject matter of the present petition revolves around the threatened eviction of the petitioner from the land they have called home for over 30-40 years. During this time, the petitioner has not only established permanent dwellings but have also been provided basic civic amenities by various government departments, such as water supply, electricity, sanitation, and ration cards, which 3 reflect official acknowledgment of their habitation. The petitioner apprehend that his displacement would result in grave violation of his right to shelter and livelihood, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and hence, seek the urgent indulgence of this Court to quash the said notice and protect their residence and dignity. The subject land, which is sought to be cleared by way of the impugned notice, has been under the peaceful, uninterrupted possession of the Petitioner and his families for over 30 to 35 years. The Petitioner is poor, landless families, who have constructed semi-pucca houses, cultivated portions of the land for subsistence agriculture, and made it his home over two decades. Various government departments have over the years provided civic facilities like electricity connections, hand pumps for drinking water, ration cards under the Public Distribution System, and have conducted surveys and Aadhaar card enrollments on the same land, thereby acknowledging the lawful and settled existence of the Petitioner. Despite such de facto recognition and government interaction with the Petitioner over the years, the Respondents have suddenly, without granting opportunity of hearing, branded the Petitioner as illegal occupant and threatened eviction. The impugned action, if not restrained by this Court, shall result in the Petitioner and his family members being rendered homeless, dispossessed, and deprived of their only source of livelihood, thereby infringing their right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the petitioner has submitted replies to the notice, by filing application to the Collector, Van Suraksha 4 Samiti, highlighting their long-standing occupation, lack of alternate shelter, and the provision of basic governmental facilities on the disputed land. However, no response or hearing has been granted. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has been left with no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court 20.06.2025 and protection of their shelter and rights guaranteed under the Constitution and applicable statutes. Hence the petition. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties. On perusal of the impugned notice dated 22.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), it reveals that the Range Officer, Balrampur has only issued notice to the petitioner regarding showing the valid documents for construction on forest compartment No.P-3394 within three days, this is not any eviction order, therefore, there is no cause of action arise to the petitioner. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the relief which has been sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in exercise of writ jurisdiction and there is no ground to challenge the impugned notice dated 22.06.2025 (Annexure P-1), in view of the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for any interference. 5 7. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. However, petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition, if any occasion arises later on. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant