Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41220 (CHH)

KANHAIYA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/4713/2025 · 2025-09-03

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:45219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 4713 of 2025 1 - Kanhaiya S/o Raganu, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Bhajpuri, Saankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Mohit Ram Sahu S/o Dasi Sahu, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Bhajpuri, Sankra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary (Forest), Government Of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Forest Officer, Forest Office Mahasamund District Mahasamund (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate For State-respondent : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.04 17:41:20 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order the State Government to issue Forest Rights Lease to the petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the Citizen of India and entitled to enjoy all the fundamental rights enshrined under part III of the Constitution of India and presently lives and does farming in Village Bhajpuri, District Mahasamund, C.G. Petitioner 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 Petitioner 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 Petitioner's claim under FRA 2006 as a valid claim. Petitioner 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 4/10/2024 Department removed Petitioner and others from Khasra no. 501 and orally ordered them to shift in another piece of land bearing Khasra no. 265, for 3 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 cant deny Petitioner's Claim under FRA 2006 on basis of half filled survey report. The State has made promise to Petitioner 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. Also, it is inhuman to throw people twice from their residence by force of law, specifically when they are living in place earmarked for them. 3. Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner may file the fresh representation/application before the concerned authority and the concerned authority consider and decide the same, as per law. 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 instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation/application/claim raising all grievances before the concerned authority within ‘30 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in-turn the concerned authority shall consider and decide the application/claim of the petitioner and to take early 4 decision on the said application/representation, as early as possible in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant