1 2025:CGHC:20230 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2254 of 2025 1 - Neelmani Lakra W/o Shri Mariyanus Lakra Aged About 50 Years R/o Gangapur Khurd Nala Para Tehsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector Surguaja District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar (Nazul) Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 2257 of 2025 1 - Ranjit Minj S/o Shri Tarsiyus Minj Aged About 43 Years R/o Gangapur Khurd, Nala Para, Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ---Petitioner Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.12 18:32:57 +0530 2 Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector Surguja, District - Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar (Nazul) Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 2258 of 2025 1 - Jacinta Xess W/o Shri Clement Xess Aged About 43 Years R/o Gangapur Khurd, Nala Para, Tehsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector, Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar (Nazul) Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 2261 of 2025 1 - Anand Giri S/o Late Shri Ramcharitra Giri Aged About 34 Years R/o Gangapur Khurd, Nala Para, Tehsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Collector Surguja, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar (Nazul) Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 2262 of 2025 1 - Mamta Bara W/o Shri Rajat Bara Aged About 35 Years R/o Gangapur Khurd Nala Para Tehsil Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Depatment Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Distict Collector Surguja District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar (Nazul) Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondents WPC No. 2273 of 2025 4 1 - Tanuja Lakra W/o Shri Narendra Lakra Aged About 42 Years R/o Gangapur Khurd, Nala Para, Tehsil- Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Collector Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tehsildar (Nazul) Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri Ashish Beck, Advocate For State : Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General, Ms. Upasana Mehta, Deputy Government Advocate and Shri Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer For Municipal Corporation : Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 02/05/2025 1. In all the present writ petitions, the petitioners have raised a similar grievance, as such all the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and are being decided by this common order. 5 2. WPC No.2254 of 2025 is taken up as the lead case for deciding all the present cases as the relief sought by the petitioners in all these cases are similar. 3. All the petitioners are residents of Gangapur Khurd locality at Ambikapur, where the petitioners and their family members are residing. They have constructed their houses in the part and parcel of the land bearing Khasra No.1/1. Initially, Gangapur Khurd was a village outside Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur and was a part of Gram Panchayat Bishunpur. In the year 2008-2009, the petitioners were granted Forest Right Title for the area measuring 0.02 hectares from Khasra No.1/1 of Village Gangapur Khurd. In the year 2013, Village Gangapur Khurd was included in Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur. Now, on the basis of coming within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Ambikapur, the right of the petitioners by way of forest right title is being disputed and the petitioners are being considered as encroachers and as such a notice dated 4.4.2025 has been issued by the Tahsildar Nazul, Ambikapur stating that the petitioners have encroached upon 138.72 square meters of land from Khasra No.1/1 of the Government Nazul land and they were directed to remove their encroachments. It has been directed that if till 8.4.2025 the petitioners do not remove their encroachments, their encroachments will be removed by the State without any information and their articles will be confiscated, as such the petitioners have filed the present petitions. 6 4. Following reliefs have been sought in the lead case, i.e., WPC No.2254 of 2025: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondent No. 2 to 4 to record the forest right title of petitioner by updating the relevant revenue records alongwith issuance of 'Rin Pustika/Kisaan Kitaab to the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned eviction notice dated 04-04-2025 (ANNEXURE-P/1). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order/direction granting any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the action on the part of the respondents authorities is per se illegal. Once the petitioners have been given forest right title by the forest authorities, the petitioners cannot be held to be encroachers only for the reason that subsequently the village came into the municipal limits. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have submitted reply, however, that has not been considered. They have paid tax. Gram Panchayat has also passed resolution. They have also deposited amount of fine. They are in possession of their houses and land since long back, as such they may not be 7 removed from their houses and land. They are poor tribal persons and are dependent on the said houses and land in which they are living. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were not being granted any Forest lease by the authorities. They have encroached upon the lands and have constructed houses upon the land. Proceedings under Section 248 of the Land Revenue Code was also initiated against them in which the concerned petitioners were imposed with penalty. The concerned Superintendent of Land Records was directed to verify that the petitioners were granted patta upon which it was found that the patta as claimed by the petitioners bears different seal and signature. It seems that it was not granted to the petitioners. The document is doubtful. The petitioners are not entitled to get any relief. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petitions. Some documents have been submitted during the course of arguments which I have given conscious consideration. 8. In Re : Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: 8 “86. It is also to be noted that the construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights. For an average citizen, the construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams, and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security, and a future. Having a house or a roof over one's head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also framed certain directions and guidelines which include notice, personal hearing, an opportunity of appellate and judicial scrutiny of the final order and proceedings of demolition, extract of some portion of the same reads as under: “Directions 90. In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary to issue certain directions in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are also of the view that even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before an appropriate forum. We are further of the view that even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period. 9 91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law. NOTICE i. No demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days' time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later. iii. The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start from the date of receipt of the said notice. PERSONAL HEARING i. The designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned. AN OPPORTUNITY OF APPELLATE AND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF THE FINAL ORDER i. We further direct that if the statute provides for an appellate opportunity and time for filing the same, or even if it does not so, the order will not be implemented for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt thereof. The order shall also be displayed on the digital portal as stated above. PROCEEDINGS OF DEMOLITION i. The proceedings of demolition shall be video- graphed, and the concerned authority shall prepare a demolition report giving the list of police officials and civil personnel that participated in the demolition process. Video recording to be duly preserved. 10 ii. The said demolition report should be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner by email and shall also be displayed on the digital portal.” 9. In the instant cases, from perusal of the documents, it seems that the petitioners are claiming their right on the basis of some forest lease granted to them. The said forest lease is in existence, but, when the petitioners have claimed their title on the basis of said lease deed, the same was verified and upon verification the concerned authorities have stated some doubt in respect of issuance of lease. The petitioners are residing in the houses and land in question since long back, which is about 20 years. They have presumed that the lease deed which they are carrying is genuine and as such while holding the same they are claiming themselves to be rightful owner. They have constructed their houses. Earlier, it was a village, namely, Gangapur Khurd and subsequently by efflux of time it came within the Municipal limits, however, the fact remains whether the forest lease upon which the petitioners are claiming right is duly verified or not. Considering the overall aspect of the matter, mainly considering upon the fact that the claim of the petitioners as rightful possession holder is based upon certain lease granted by the Forest department, which the petitioners are presuming to be genuine one. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re : Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (supra) and also taking note that the petitioners are tribal persons, the area upon which they 11 are residing is also a Scheduled Area and as such this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents authorities to give proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners to verify their documents and claims and thereafter to pass necessary orders by giving proper opportunity of hearing to each of the petitioners. Till the decision is taken by the respondents authorities, the petitioners may not be removed from their possession. This exercise be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh