1 2025:CGHC:60228-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 855 of 2025 1 - Sarla Devi W/o Manohar Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 2 - Sabhapati W/o Vansh Narayan Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 3 - Ranmet W/o Janeshwar Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 4 - Sajeen S/o Inder Sai Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 5 - Sukhdev Das S/o Tapeshwar Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 6 - Lalibai W/o Bholeram Aged About 72 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 7 - Bifani W/o Anandram Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.12 10:43:59 +0530 2 8 - Sudhni Bai W/o Dadulal Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 9 - Sushila W/o Ram Prasad Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 10 - Retlo W/o Bhuneshwar Aged About 71 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 11 - Nandlal S/o Sukhram Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 12 - Baburam S/o Madwari Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 13 - Sarita D/o Shivajan Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 14 - Amrikan S/o Krishna Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 15 - Prabhawati W/o Amrikan Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 16 - Smt. Gouri Bai W/o Rungta Aged About 56 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 3 17 - Satvan Ram S/o Mangalram Aged About 36 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 18 - Kaushaliya W/o Mangalram Aged About 61 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 19 - Savitri W/o Siyaram Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 20 - Krishna Ram Beck S/o Lunder Ram Aged About 41 Years Resident Of Village- Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District- Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) --- Appellants Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Chief Secretary Mantralaya Naya, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries Mantralaya Naya Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Secretary Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caster Welfare Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Director Directorate Of Industries Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Collector Surguja District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Block- Batauli, Sitapur, Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 4 8 - General Manager Zila Vyapar Avam Udhyog Kendra, Ambikapur Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 9 - Tahsildar Batauli Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 10 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Janpad Panchayat Batauli Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 11 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Janpad Panchayat Batauli, Distt- Surguja (C.G.) 12 - M/s Maa Kudargadi Alumina Refinery Private Limited Through- Its Managing Director, Having Its Registered Office At Shop No. 503,504, 505 Ozone Plaza, Fafadih Chowk Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 492004 13 - Anmol Vivek Tippo S.D.O. Sitapur District- Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondents WA No. 896 of 2025 1 - Sikbar Singh S/o Gokul Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 2 - Ramchandra S/o Ameer Sai Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 3 - Prakash S/o Bhikham Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 4 - Dev Kumari W/o Ramchandra Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 5 - Kumbhdev Singh S/o Sikbar Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 5 6 - Sukhmaniya W/o Late Gopalram Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 7 - Basanti W/o Prakash Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 8 - Amresh Singh S/o Ram Bhajan Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 9 - Kusmet W/o Amresh Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 10 - Dhaneshwari W/o Govind Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 11 - Chamrin D/o Late Jagmohan Aged About 76 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 12 - Balroop S/o Sitaram Ravi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 13 - Chandan Ram S/o Ghuran Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 14 - Raj Kumar S/o Kamu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 6 15 - Kunwar Sai Kamu Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 16 - Surajmani S/o Rajkumar Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 17 - Maanmati W/o Kunwar Sai Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 18 - Sitaram S/o Khujha Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 19 - Samudri W/o Sitaram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 20 - Ghuneshwari W/o Surendra Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 21 - Surendra S/o Shriram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 22 - Bisun Ram S/o Hriday Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 23 - Fulkunwar S/o Bisun Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) 7 24 - Shrawan Kumar S/o Shivbhajan Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, Police Station Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur) (C.G.) ---Appellants Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industries, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Director, Directorate Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Collector, Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Block Batauli, Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 8 - General Manager, Zila Vyapar Avam Udhyog Kendra, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 9 - Tehsildar, Batauli, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 10 - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Janpad Panchayat Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) 11 - Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Janpad Panchayat Batauli, District Surguja (C.G.) 12 - M/s Maa Kudargadi Alumina Refinery Private Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Having Its Registered Office At Shop No. 8 503,504,505 Ozone Plaza, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 492004 13 - Anmol Vivek Toppo, S.D.O. Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondents WA No. 889 of 2025 1 - Kannilal S/o Bhanduram Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2 - Shyam Singh S/o Ram Prasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Badshah S/o Late Badal Sai Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Basanti Painkara W/o Sawan Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Pratima Toppo W/o Sunil Toppo Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Sulender S/o Shiv Kumar Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Smt. Kumti W/o Tarendra Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 8 - Ishwar Lakra S/o Shriram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Ram Niwas S/o Laxman Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 10 - Ramchandra S/o Late Jhaman Sai Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 11 - Maheshwar S/o Late Rudra Prasad Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 12 - Smt. Basanti W/o Bal Sai Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 13 - Smt. Chilho W/o Basant Nayak Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 14 - Thather Ram S/o Kotwar Nayak Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 15 - Jhakam Sai S/o Banarsi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 16 - Ravi Shankar Singh S/o Late Kishnath Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 10 17 - Rakesh Kumar Painkara S/o Late Jogiram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 18 - Jawahir Nayak S/o Late Mudwa Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 19 - Butiya Nayak S/o Ghuthal Ram Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 20 - Nanka Ram S/o Late Majha Ram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 21 - Anu Kumar S/o Ramdhani Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 22 - Smt. Vanaspati W/o Ramjeevan Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 23 - Ram S/o Kendwa Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 24 - Smt. Kaleshri W/o Binu Naag Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 25 - Sukh Maniya Naag W/o Sanjay Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---Appellants Versus 11 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Secretary Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Director Directorate Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector Surguja, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Block- Batauli, Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 8 - General Manager Zila Vyapar Avam Udhyog Kendra, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Tahsildar Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 10 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Janpad Panchayat Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 11 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Janpad Panchayat, Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 12 - M/s Maa Kudargadi Alumina Refinery Private Limited Through Its Managing Director, Having Its Registered Office At Shop No. 503, 504, 505 Ozone Plaza, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, C.G. 492004 13 - Anmol Vivek Toppo S.D.O. Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 12 For Appellants : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General For Respective Respondents : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Mr. Harshal Chouhan and Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.12 .2025 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for State and Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Mr. Harshal Chouhan and Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 2. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 25.11.2025, the Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) has filed his personal affidavit, relevant portion of which reads as follows :- “2. That, the appellants/ petitioners have preferred the instant writ appeal against the order dated 03/06/2025 passed in a bunch of Writ Petitions, i.e., WPC no. 336/2023, WPC 354/23, WPC 356/23 and WPC 358/23 whereby, the writ petitions preferred by the petitions have 351/23, WPC been disposed off by the Hon'ble court. 3. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Court has also made an observation in para 19 of the judgement, which reads a under - 13 19... Hence, while the encroached land cannot be restored or regularized, the socio-economic condition of each petitioner must be considered carefully by the State when examining claims for alternative allotment or rehabilitation under existing schemes or policies. 4. Further, the Hon'ble Court in para 20 has observed as under - 20. At present, the petitioners may be cultivating paddy and other crops. Therefore, their occupation and possession should not be disturbed for a period of two months, so that they do not face difficulties during the rainy season. However, it is made clear that after two months, their possession shall be vacated which is within the allotted land of respondent No. 12. The authorities are also directed not to take any illegal action against the petitioners. 5. The Hon'ble Court in paragraph no. 12 of the said judgement has observed as under - 12. It is not in dispute that the land in question is recorded as Government revenue land, specifically "Pahad (mountainous Chattan rocky terrain), in revenue records. However, it is also evident from the pleadings and documents on record that the land has historically been used by the villagers for nistar purposes, including grazing, collection of forest produce, and agricultural cultivation in some parts. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the instant appeal was listed for hearing before the Hon'ble 14 Court on 25/11/2025 and the Hon'ble Court has directed to file an affidavit regarding paragraphs 12 and 20 of order passed by the Hon'ble Court in WPC 336/23 and other connected matters pertaining to the steps taken for rehabilitation of the villagers. 7. It is respectfully submitted that a prompt intimation was received from the Office of the Advocate General pursuant to which instruction was issued by the Office of the Collector, Sarguja, Ambikapur, i.e. respondent no. 06 to the Sub Divisional Officer R, Batauli, Sitapur to take steps in compliance of the Hon'ble Court's orders passed in WPC 336/23 and other connected matters regarding rehabilitation of the affected petitioners /persons and process the claims made by the petitioners for their rehabilitation / alternate land. Copy of the Instructions issued by the Collector, Sarguja Ambikapur [CG] is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE D/1. 8. It is most respectfully submitted that the direction issued by the Hon'ble Court shall be complied with in its true letter and spirit and any claim made by the petitioners seeking alternate land allotment or rehabilitation under existing scheme or policy shall be processed expeditiously in accordance with law. 9. It is most respectfully submitted that pursuant to the direction issued in para 20 the petitioners have not been disturbed for the specified period of 3 months, as also no coercive steps were taken against them. 15 10. With regard to the contents of the para 12, it is most respectfully submitted that the land in question, i.e., Khasra no. 57/1, 70/1 and 70/77 situated in village Chiranga, Tehsil Batauli Sarguja is recorded as Pahadi Chattan (Mountains and rocky terrain) in the revenue records. 11. It is most respectfully submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners were using the said land for Nistar purposes or collecting or agricultural forest produce production. The copy of the revenue records pertaining to the aforesaid khasra numbers is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE D/2. 12. That, the deponent herein is aware about the gravity of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court and he respectfully submits that he is duty bound to comply with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in its letter and spirit. 13. The above submissions and documents may kindly be taken on record of the case in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Court.” 3. From perusal of the affidavit, it transpires that the instructions were issued by the Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, to the Sub Divisional Officer, Batauli, Sitapur, to process the claims of the affected appellants/writ petitioners for rehabilitation or alternate land allotment under existing schemes or policies. It further transpires that the appellants/writ petitioners were not disturbed, and no coercive action was taken against them. With regard to the land in question, i.e., Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1 and 70/77 in 16 Village Chiranga, Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja, the affidavit reflects that it is recorded as Pahadi Chattan (mountainous/rocky terrain) in the revenue records. He asserts that there is no evidence to suggest that the appellants/writ petitioners were using the said land for nistar purposes, grazing, collection of forest produce, or agricultural cultivation. Copies of the relevant revenue records have been annexed as Annexure D/2. 4. The present intra Court appeals have been instituted assailing the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 336/2023 and other connected writ petitions, by which the writ petitions preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners have been finally disposed of. 5. Brief facts of the cases, as projected before the learned Single Judge, in nutshell, were that the appellants/writ petitioners are long-standing residents of Village Chiranga under Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Block Batauli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. The village has a population of about 1,800 persons, predominantly belonging to Scheduled Tribes such as Oraon, Kanwar, Nagesia, Korwa, Manjhi and Saunta communities, along with approximately 70 Scheduled Caste families and a few OBC households. Village Chiranga is a notified Scheduled Area under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and is therefore governed by statutory protections under Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (for short, ‘PESA’) and 17 the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (for short, FRA’). The geographical area comprises mountains, forests, and plains, and the appellants/writ petitioners’ livelihood depends on agriculture, grazing, forest produce collection (Mahua, Tendu, Harra, Baheda, Amla, medicinal herbs), livestock rearing, and firewood — activities traditionally carried out on the disputed land. 6. It was the case of the appellants/writ petitioners that, by memorandum No. 161/Vachak/2020, the Collector, Surguja, ordered transfer of Government land bearing Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1 and 70/77, admeasuring 91.942 hectares, to the Department of Industries for establishment of an industrial project. Pursuant thereto, the Tehsildar initiated Revenue Case No. 01/A-19/2019- 20 and issued a notice dated 12.10.2020 proposing allotment of the said parcels to the General Manager, Zila Vyapar Evam Udhyog Kendra, Ambikapur. The land, though recorded as mountainous (Pahad/Chattan) and classified as Gairmajarua, had historically been used by appellants/writ petitioners for grazing, cultivation, and forest-based livelihood. The notice was never formally served upon the Gram Panchayat and came to their knowledge only on 25.10.2020. Objections were submitted on 27.10.2020 by 760 villagers asserting traditional nistar rights, pending individual and community claims under the FRA, and the mandatory requirement of Gram Sabha consent under PESA. 7. It was further alleged that the General Manager rejected the 18 objections on erroneous grounds and relied on a purported Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020 granting consent for the project. According to appellants/writ petitioners, no such Gram Sabha had been convened; the alleged resolution was a fabrication engineered by the Sarpanch, Secretary and the General Manager. In contrast, a genuine Gram Sabha held on 08.03.2020 had unanimously opposed the proposed aluminium plant, and another objection was filed on 22.07.2020 reiterating the opposition. To demonstrate falsity of the alleged resolution dated 08.08.2020, the appellants/writ petitioners produced a certificate dated 31.12.2020 issued by the Sarpanch and Secretary themselves, stating that no meeting was ever held on that date and no such proceedings were recorded. 8. It was also the case of the appellants/writ petitioners that they had sought reasonable time of 45 days to obtain records under RTI and file a detailed rejoinder through counsel on 08.02.2021, but the Tehsildar refused adjournment and fixed hearing for 11.02.2021. An adjournment application was filed citing the need to challenge previous orders and produce evidence of fabrication, including a police complaint filed on 03.02.2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC against the concerned officials, followed by a representation under Section 154(3) CrPC on 07.08.2021 when no action was taken. A subsequent Gram Sabha on 14.07.2021 unanimously recalled and rejected the forged resolution. 19 9. The appellants/writ petitioners further asserted that individual FRA claims had never been forwarded by authorities to the Gram Sabha for consideration and were rejected without notice, and that the community forest rights title issued to the village was improperly demarcated without participation of villagers. The disputed Khasra numbers fall well within village boundaries and are protected under the FRA. 10. Repeated representations, including one dated 13.01.2021, were made before the Collector opposing the land transfer as contrary to revenue circulars, PESA and FRA. The appellants/writ petitioners thus filed WPC No. 4477/2021 contending that the land transfer was based on a forged Gram Sabha resolution and a blatantly flawed inquiry. This Court, by order dated 11.11.2021, directed the Collector to verify the FRA proceedings and inquire into the authenticity of the Gram Sabha resolution. However, contrary to the Court’s directions, the inquiry was conducted by the SDO Sitapur, not the Collector. The inquiry report was perfunctory, failed to examine pending FRA claims, and recorded contradictory statements of multiple villagers allegedly “presiding” over the same Gram Sabha — an impossibility under Section 129-B of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which mandates a single presiding tribal member. The inquiry was conducted without notice to appellants/writ petitioners, prompting further representations dated 25.02.2022 and 19.07.2022 when respondent No. 12 attempted to dispossess villagers relying on 20 the fraudulent report. 11. According to the appellants/writ petitioners, the entire process demonstrates systematic violation of constitutional and statutory protections afforded to Scheduled Tribe communities under the Fifth Schedule, PESA and FRA. The impugned order of the Collector dated 19.02.2021 is founded upon a fabricated Gram Sabha resolution, an illegal and defective inquiry, and a complete disregard of procedural safeguards, thereby warranting its quashment. 12. Aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents, the appellants/writ petitioners filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, the leading case being WPC No.336/2023, which were disposed of vide order dated 03.09.2025. 13. Being dissatisfied with the said order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.336/2023, some of the appellants/writ petitioners have filed the instant writ appeals challenging the same. 14. Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners submitted that the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has acknowledged that the land in question has historically been used by the villagers for nistar purposes, including grazing, collection of forest produce, and agricultural cultivation, and that the appellants/writ petitioners and other villagers have been in long-standing occupation of the land, 21 constructing kaccha houses and engaging in agriculture in some parts. However, the learned Single Judge failed to apply the statutory framework applicable to Scheduled Areas, including the provisions of the PESA and FRA, which have been vehemently pleaded by the appellants/writ petitioners. She further submitted that Village Chiranga, Panchayat Batauli, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, falls within a Scheduled Area under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India. Sections 4(d) and 4(e)(i) of PESA expressly empower the Gram Sabha to safeguard community resources, cultural identity, and traditions, as well as to approve and be consulted before acquisition of land for development projects. Despite conceding that the land has been used for nistar, the learned Single Judge failed to recognize and enforce the rights of the Gram Sabha guaranteed under PESA, thereby ignoring the statutory safeguards afforded to the appellants/writ petitioners. 15. Ms. Soren argued that the impugned order relies on a Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020, which is a forged document. The appellants/writ petitioners have submitted complaints to the local police and the Tehsildar regarding the falsity of this resolution, yet the Collector and the Single Judge have ignored this fact. The enquiry conducted by the SDO Sitapur was flawed, illegal, and in violation of the High Court’s earlier directions. The report recorded contradictory statements, did not provide notice to villagers, ignored quorum requirements, and failed to comply 22 with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Gram Sabha (Sammilan ki Prakriya) Niyam, 1994 (for short, Niyam, 1994’). It is submitted that the learned Single Judge also failed to consider the appellants/writ petitioners’ rights under the FRA, which protects individual and community forest rights and empowers the Gram Sabha to regulate and preserve forest and ecological resources. The disputed land, comprising Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77, is recorded as Pahad Chattan and falls within forest and nistar lands. The learned Single Judge’s findings ignore the principles and objectives of FRA to correct historical injustice and protect the livelihood, habitat, and traditional rights of Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers. Consequently, the impugned order is arbitrary, mala fide, and fails to apply the applicable legal framework for Scheduled Areas and liable to be set aside. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State, submits that the appellants/writ petitioners have been provided full opportunity and that all directions issued by the Court in WPC No.336/2023 and other connected matters are being complied with. The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, has issued instructions to the Sub Divisional Officer, Batauli, Sitapur, to process the claims of the affected appellants/writ petitioners for rehabilitation or alternate land allotment under existing schemes and policies. He further submits that during the period specified by the Court, the appellants/writ petitioners were not disturbed in their possession, 23 and no coercive action has been taken against them. 17. It has been contended by Mr. Das with regard to the land in question, namely Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77 in Village Chiranga, Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja that the land is recorded in the revenue records as Pahadi Chattan (mountainous/rocky terrain). He further submits that there is no evidence to show that the appellants/writ petitioners were using the said land for nistar purposes, grazing, collection of forest produce, or agricultural cultivation. 18. Mr. Das, therefore, submits that all steps required for compliance with the Court’s directions have been duly initiated and are in progress. The process for consideration of the appellants/writ petitioners’ claims for rehabilitation or alternate land allotment is being conducted in accordance with law and the relevant policies. Accordingly, the submissions on behalf of the appellants/writ petitioners, to the extent they allege non-compliance or coercive action, are misplaced. 19. Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Mr. Harshal Chouhan and Ms. Shristi Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents jointly submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is a well-reasoned and detailed order, reflecting careful consideration of the pleadings, documents on record, and applicable legal provisions. It is submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge 24 do not warrant any interference by this Court, and the writ appeals filed by the appellants/writ petitioners are liable to be dismissed. 20. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed in WPC No.336/2023 and other connected matters. 21. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the dictum rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Joginder and another v. State of Haryana and others, (2021) 3 SCC 300 and Murlidhar Dayandeo Keksar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 549, has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “12. It is not in dispute that the land in question is recorded as Government revenue land, specifically “Pahad Chattan” (mountainous rocky terrain), in revenue records. However, it is also evident from the pleadings and documents on record that the land has historically been used by the villagers for nistar purposes, including grazing, collection of forest produce, and agricultural cultivation in some parts. 13. Upon perusal of pleadings and documents, it is also revealed that the petitioners and other 25 villagers are in long-standing occupation of the land, and in some cases they have constructed kaccha houses or are undertaking agricultural activities. However, it is also not disputed that they do not have any formal legal title or pattas in their name. Therefore, while their occupation may be longstanding, it is technically unauthorized and irregular, and cannot be converted into a legal entitlement unless processed through appropriate statutory frameworks. Petitioners are illegal encroachers and have occupied land belonging to the State. Other revenue documents go to show that the petitioners have illegally occupied the same, and in some parts are carrying on agricultural operations. An illegal occupation cannot form the basis of a legal claim, merely on the ground that the petitioners have occupied the land for a long time or are engaged in agricultural activity. No vested right accrues in favour of such petitioners. Merely because the land is lying vacant or is not being used by Government for any other purpose, it does not give any person the right to encroach upon it and to get it regularised on the basis of their long occupation and possession. 14. The procedure for regularisation or allotment of Government land is governed by specific statutory rules, and must be adhered to. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are in occupation of the land and therefore deserve to be heard before the land is allotted elsewhere. However, this claim cannot override the fact that they are illegal occupants. 26 True it is that the petitioners are in occupation of some portion of Government land, albeit in an unauthorised manner, and as such, they cannot seek protection of law for such possession. The land in question has been allotted to respondent No. 12 for establishment of an industrial project. 15. In the matter of Joginder and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 300, the Hon’ble Suprem Court has held as under : “13. It is required to be noted that the persons in illegal occupation of the government land/panchayat land cannot, as a matter of right, claim regularisation. Regularisation of the illegal occupation of the government land/panchayat land can only be as per the policy of the State Government and the conditions stipulated in the Rules. If it is found that the conditions stipulated for regularisation have not been fulfilled, such persons in illegal occupation of the government land/panchayat land are not entitled to regularisation. As observed by this Court in the recent decision in State of Odisha v. Bichitrananda Das [State of Odisha v. Bichitrananda Das, (2020) 12 SCC 649] , an applicant who seeks the benefit of the policy must comply with its terms. In the present case, the policy which was formulated by the State Government which culminated in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules specifically contained a stipulation to the effect that the illegal/unauthorised occupation up to a maximum of 200 sq yd only can be sold on regularisation and on fulfilment of other conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. The petitioners are found to be in illegal occupation of the area of more than 200 sq yd. Therefore, one of the conditions mentioned in Rule 12(4) is not satisfied and therefore both, the competent authority as well as the High Court, have rightly held that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Rule 12(4) of the 1964 Rules. We are in 27 complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court as well as the competent authority.” 16. In view of the factual and legal position, it cannot be held that the petitioners, who are in illegal occupation and possession of the land in question, can claim any legal protection or a right to regularization. Though it is submitted that the petitioners were not granted a hearing before allotment, such a ground is not tenable in favour of encroachers. At the most, the petitioners may be entitled to seek rehabilitation under appropriate schemes, considering their socio- economic vulnerability. The petitioners may file an application for alternative allotment or rehabilitation, and it is directed that the State Government shall consider their claims sympathetically, in accordance with applicable rules and policies. However, such rehabilitation cannot be ordered on the land which was already allotted for a notified public purpose project, such as the one involved herein. 17. Accordingly, while confirming the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 12, the respondent – State is directed to consider the application filed by each of the petitioner for their rehabilitation on some alternate land, but after analysing the case of each individual petitioner, in accordance with law while keeping their socio economic conditions. 18. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Murlidhar Dayandeo Keskar vs. Vishwanath Pandu Barde, reported in 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 28 549 has held as under : “21. Economic empowerment to the poor, Dalits and Tribes, is an integral constitutional scheme of socio-economic democracy and a way of life of political democracy. Economic empowerment is, therefore, a basic human right and a fundamental right as part of right to live, equality and of status and dignity to the poor, weaker sections, Dalits and Tribes. The State has evolved, by its legislative and executive action, the policy to allot lands to the Dalits and Tribes and other weaker sections for their economic empowerment. The Government evolved two-pronged economic policies to render economic justice to the poor. The Planning Commission evolved policies like DRDL for economic empowerment of the weaker sections of the society; the Dalits and Tribes in particular…….” 19. In the present case, it is evident from the material on record that the petitioners belong to economically weaker sections of society and have been residing on the land in question for a considerable period of time, primarily for shelter and livelihood. Though their occupation may be unauthorized in the strict legal sense, their socio- economic vulnerability cannot be disregarded. Most of the petitioners are daily-wage earners, marginal workers, or persons engaged in informal sectors, and their access to stable housing or alternative land is severely limited. In such circumstances, and in view of the constitutional mandate to secure socio-economic justice to all citizens, especially the marginalized and weaker sections, the State is obligated to take a humane and rehabilitative approach. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murlidhar Dayandeo Keskar (supra), economic empowerment of such 29 sections is an essential component of their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution. Hence, while the encroached land cannot be restored or regularized, the socio- economic condition of each petitioner must be considered carefully by the State when examining claims for alternative allotment or rehabilitation under existing schemes or policies. 20. At present, the petitioners may be cultivating paddy and other crops. Therefore, their occupation and possession should not be disturbed for a period of two months, so that they do not face difficulties during the rainy season. However, it is made clear that after two months, their possession shall be vacated which is within the allotted land of respondent No. 12. The authorities are also directed not to take any illegal action against the petitioners. 21. With the above directions and observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of.” 22. The core issue in the present appeal revolves around the entitlement of the appellants/writ petitioners to claim regularization, legal title, or protection over Government land recorded as Pahadi Chattan, specifically Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77 in Village Chiranga, Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja, notwithstanding the lawful allotment of the same land to respondent No. 12 for establishment of an industrial project. 23. The appellants/writ petitioners assert long-standing occupation of the land, traditional use for nistar purposes including grazing, 30 collection of forest produce, and agricultural cultivation, as well as rights under statutory frameworks such as the PESA and the FRA. 24. The learned Single Judge, after careful appreciation of the pleadings, documents, revenue records, and statutory provisions, has correctly held that while the appellants/writ petitioners may have occupied and used the land for livelihood purposes over a long period, such occupation is technically unauthorized and irregular, and no legal title or patta exists in their favour. 25. The findings of the learned Single Judge are consistent with settled legal principles, including the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder (supra) and Murlidhar Dayandeo Keskar (supra), which underscore that mere long-standing unauthorized occupation does not create a vested right or entitlement to regularization, especially when the land is allotted for a notified public purpose project. 26. The appellants/writ petitioners’ allegations regarding a purportedly forged Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020, non-compliance with procedural safeguards, or alleged failure to consider FRA claims, have been examined and addressed. 27. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellants/writ petitioners, despite occupation, cannot override statutory rules governing allotment of Government land. 31 28. The Single Judge’s order further ensures that the socio-economic vulnerability of the appellants/writ petitioners is recognized. Directions have been given to the State to sympathetically consider claims for rehabilitation or alternative land allotment under existing schemes and policies, keeping in mind their traditional dependence on the land, livelihood, and socio- economic condition. 29. On the other hand, the submissions on behalf of the State, through Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, demonstrate that all necessary steps for compliance with the directions of this Court in WPC No.336/2023 and other connected matters have been initiated and are being implemented in accordance with law. The appellants/writ petitioners’ possession was not disturbed during the specified period, and no coercive action was taken. The State authorities are in the process of considering claims for rehabilitation or alternate allotment in accordance with applicable policies and statutory provisions. 30. It is evident from the record that the impugned order strikes a balance between protecting the State’s lawful interest in allotting the land for a public purpose project and addressing the socio- economic concerns of the appellants/writ petitioners. 31. The impugned order recognizes that the land cannot be restored or regularized but ensures that each petitioner’s socio-economic situation is considered carefully for alternative allotment or 32 rehabilitation. In doing so, the learned Single Judge has faithfully applied constitutional principles, statutory protections under PESA and FRA, and relevant judicial precedents. 32. In view of the above, these writ appeals being WA No.855/2025, WA No.889/2025 and WA No.896/2025 filed by the appellants/writ petitioners is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge regarding consideration of alternative allotment or rehabilitation shall continue to be implemented by the State authorities expeditiously and in accordance with law, ensuring due regard to the socio- economic status, livelihood, and traditional rights of the appellants/writ petitioners. 33. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu