1 2025:CGHC:43519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4583 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Ramshubhag Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Salka, Post- Dewadand, Tahsil- Khadgawan, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Principal Chief Conversation Of Forest, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Koriya Forest Circle, Baikunthpur District- Koriya (C.G.) 5 - The Forest Range Officer Forest Circle- Khadgawan, Now District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Khadgawan, District- Koriya Now District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 28/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following relief: 2 “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to occupy the land of the petitioner which is the sole source of his livelihood. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land bearing P.F. No. 620 admeasuring 01 hectare situated at Village-Salka, Tahsil- Khadgawan, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) without following due process of law. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the petitioner’s application/representation filed under Section 6 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 expeditiously, in accordance with law, and to consider grant of Van Adhikar Patta in his favour. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said land and to restrain 3 them from further demolition of the house of the petitioner or destruction of his crops. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the loss caused to him due to destruction of his standing crops and demolition of a portion of his house in July, 2025 as evidenced by photographs (Annexure P/8). 10.6 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case,, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the acts of the respondents are wholly illegal and arbitrary, despite the specific order dated 03.09.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 4393 of 2024, permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh application under Section 6 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and despite the petitioner having complied with the said order by filing a fresh representation which is pending, the respondents have once again acted in a high-handed manner by entering into the land of the petitioner and destroying his standing crop and residential house. Learned counsel for the petitioner 4 prays that he may be permitted to submit an application afresh before the authority as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 2006. 3. Learned State Counsel opposed the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of the counsels, as also the provision under Section 6 of the Act, 2006, this writ petition at this stage, is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit an application afresh before the authority as provided under Section 6 of the Act, 2006 and in turn, concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within 6 months, in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima