1 2025:CGHC:61175-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 933 of 2025 1 - Dhuma Ram S/o Late Ghuthal Ram Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Setram S/o Late Manit Ram Aged About 67 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Ram Singh S/o Ram Dhani Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Ram Khelawan Singh S/o Late Aadip Sai Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Chandan Bai W/o Nankaram Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Shuklpati W/o Shyam Singh Aged About 38 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 7 - Basant Ram S/o Budhau Aged About 76 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Smt. Kishmatiya W/o Gabbuchand Aged About 41 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 9 - Geerja W/o Anand Ram Aged About 28 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 10 - Jeevan Ram S/o Late Lal Sai Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 11 - Brij Mohan S/o Runda Aged About 43 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 12 - Smt. Tijo Bai W/o Dhumaram Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 13 - Pratabo W/o Late Badal Sai Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 14 - Tipeshwar Singh S/o Late Sikham Aged About 37 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 15 - Suresh S/o Rudra Prasad Aged About 52 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 16 - Narmada Singh S/o Late Parshuram Singh Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 17 - Jaylal S/o Late Tibal Aged About 63 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 18 - Smt. Janeshri W/o Jaylal Aged About 62 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 19 - Sunil Toppo S/o Mangru Ram Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 20 - Suvaso W/o Sulender Aged About 51 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (C.G.) 21 - Thakur Prasad S/o Late Ameer Sai Aged About 45 Years Resident Of Village Chiranga, Block- Batauli, Police Station- Batauli, District- Surguja (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, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 8 - General Manager Zila Vyapar Avam Udhyog Kendra, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 3 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 Toppo S.D.O. Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Gayatri Chouhan, Advocate For State/Resp. Nos. 1 to 9 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Resp Nos. 10 & 11 : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Resp No. 12 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, Advocate For Resp. No. 13 : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16 . 12 .202 5 1. Heard Ms. Gayatri Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 9, Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 10 & 11, Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.12 and Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.13 on I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 08 days in filing the instant appeal. 4 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellants, who were writ petitioners in writ petition, have challenged the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 354/2023 (Dhuma Ram & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 4. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 855 of 2025 (Sarla Devi & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and batch vide order dated 11.12.2025, observing as follows : “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, collection of forest produce, and 5 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. 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 6 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 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 7 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.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 855 of 2025 and batch, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 855 of 2025 and batch, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 855 of 2025 and batch. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in WA No. 855 of 2025 (Sarla Devi & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra