1 / 3 2025:CGHC:42638 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4510 of 2025 1 - Khem Raj S/o Mandhar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bhajpuri Vikaskhand Pithaora. District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Manjeet Miri S/o Kartik Ram Miri Aged About 49 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Sawitripur Mahasamund District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - Alekh Kumar S/o Kathlu Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhajpuri Sankra, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 4 - Lalita Purena W/o Amar Das Purena Aged About 38 Years R/o Bhajpuri Post Bhagat Deori Bhajpuri Sankra , District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 5 - Vishnu Nishad S/o Dhurau Nishad Aged About 36 Years R/o Bhajpuri Sankra, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 6 - Sadram S/o Dhansai Nishad Aged About 84 Years R/o Bhajpuri Sankra, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 7 - Mohan Kumar S/o Kanhaiya Lal Aged About 34 Years R/o Bhajpuri Sankra, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, (Forest) Government Of Chhattisgarh , Secretariat Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 22/08/2025 1. The petitioner has been filed this writ petition for the following relief(s) : 2 / 3 “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to order The State Government to issue Forest Rights Lease to Petitioner. 10.2 That, Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Petitioners lived in Bhanpuri village and in forest land from past three generations, by which he becomes a claimant of forest land under Forest Rights Act 2006. (in short FRA 2006 hereafter). In year 2001, State Government did survey /panchnama in which officials wrote that Petitioners and his father live in Khasra no. 265 from year 2001 without citing any document or evidence and keeping its column/space blank, and for illegal rejection of Petitioner's claim under FRA 2006. Village Forest Committee (Gram Van Semiti) has also endorsed Petitioners's claim under FRA 2006 as a valid claim. Petitioners and other villagers filed various representations to ministries and Govt department for getting forest land lease (Van Adhikar Patta) so that they can live and settle peacefully. Surprisingly, on 04/10/2024, State Forest Department removed Petitioners and others from Khasra no. 501 and orally ordered them to shift in another piece of land bearing Khasra no. 265, for livelihood and shelter. Though they live in a place which was earmarked for them by Forest department officials, they are not getting forest land lease rights and are being threatened for removal again. Also The State Government deny Petitioners' claim under FRA, 2006 on basis of half filled survey report. The 3 / 3 State has made promise to Petitioners that he can live in the place earmarked for them, as visible by their statement written in second survey report. Also, promises made by State Government officials are governed by Principle of promissory estoppels. 3. Counsel for State opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioners. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, the petition is disposed of directing to Respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation Annexure P-2 colly. As expeditiously as possible in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 6. Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the representation of the petitioners on its own merits. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu