1 2025:CGHC:61955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 551 of 2022 Order Reserved on 24.09.2025 Order Delivered on 19.12.2025 Smt. Parwati W/o Late Shri Chintaram Aged About 62 Years R/o Kharmora, Tehsil Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorney Holder, Muniram S/o Late Shri Pawar Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Kharmora Tehsil Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Forest, At Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest (Head Of Fofest Force), Chhattisgarh Aranya Bhawan North Block, Sector 19 Kotara Bhantha, Naya Raipur District Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Circle Near Sindhi Colony, Jarhabhata P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 5 - Divisional Forest Officer Korba Division, District Korba (C.G) 6 - Collector, Korba District Korba (C.G.) 7 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 8 - Tahsildar, Korba District Korba (C.G.) --- Respondents ___________________________________________________________ 2 For petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State-Respondents : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, PL ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma CAV Order 1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner’s cases. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to set aside the construction work on the aforementioned property of the petitioner that has started against the order of this Hon'ble Court and also not giving any prior information/notice of the acquiring of land to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner Smt. Parvati is aged about 62 years, so she has appointed her brother-in-law Shri Muniram as her Power of Attorney Holder. The petitioner is the resident of village- Kharmora, Tahsil Korba, Distt. Korba and the of the land petitioner is recorded owner which is situated in the Village Kharmora, bearing Khasra No. 272, Rakba 01.08 acre and Khasra name in No. 283, Rakba 0.30 acre. It is alleged that her above mentioned land is illegally encroached by the Forest 3 Department, so she has filed an application under Section 89 of Land Revenue Code before Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba, District-Korba (C.G.), which was dismissed on 29.07.2013. Then, against the said order, petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 44(1) of Land Revenue Code in the Court of Respondent no. 6 which was decided on 27.01.2014. 3. On the basis of order dated 27.01.2014, petitioner has filed an application before the respondent no.7, for execution of the order of the respondent No.6. On receiving the application dated 16.03.2020 of the petitioner, respondent no.7 has registered a case and initiated the proceedings. The respondent no.7 has issued a reminder -letter to the respondent no. 8. Then the petitioner filed a writ petition, WPC No. 3032 of 2021 before this Court and the said writ petition has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2021 with the following observation:- “3. Perusal of the order of the Collector would show course direction certain that was given to sort out as to whether the petitioner's land has been enveloped for putting up a nursery by the forest department or not? If the petitioner is the owner of the land aforementioned then he must enjoy the fruits of it as otherwise it would amount to deprive him of the ownership of the property without of law. Under these due circumstances, the SDO is directed to carry out the direction given by the Collector as reproduced herein before within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. It is further directed that if it is found that the petitioner's land has been 4 encroached upon by the forest department then the petitioner should be restored to her land or otherwise if the respondents wish to acquire the land, it should be done in due course of law 3 within a reasonable time of outer limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 4. The petitioner has filed his representation along with the order dated 27.07.2021, before the respondents on 18.08.2021 which is contained in Annexure P-8 along with this petition. 5. After getting the representation along with the copy of the order of this Court, despite of performing the duties and without giving any regarding acquiring of land to the petitioner, Respondents have started to construct the boundary wall in the aforementioned property of petitioner. When the petitioner came to know about the construct of the boundary wall, the petitioner has filed a representation before the respondents on 04.01.2022 which is already contained in Annexure P-1 along with this petition. Though about 20 days has already completed from the date of representation, but the respondents have not stopped the construction and also not decided the petitioner's representation. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law applicable in the facts and circumstance of the present case. After 5 getting the representation along with the copy of the order of this Court, despite of performing information/notice regarding acquiring of land to the petitioner, Respondents have started construct the wall in the aforementioned property of petitioner. The construction on the subject land carrying on by the Respondents is illegal and against the order of this Court. Therefore, it is prayed that may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to stop the construction work on the aforementioned property of the petitioner as soon as possible. 7. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the present petition as framed and filed by the petitioner is bereft of merit and substance and therefore the same deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has failed to show the existence of any right in her favour for the enforcement of which a writ may be issued by this Court. So far as the grievance of the petitioner that without any opportunity of hearing and without giving any notice regarding acquiring the land of the petitioner the respondents have started to construct the boundary wall on the aforementioned property of the petitioner. Learned counsel would submit that on 14/02/2024 an order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Korba wherein the Revenue Case No. 202005050100002/11 A-6- A/2019-2020 Village Kharmora, Patwari Halka No. 20 Tahsil and District Korba (CG) has been registered and has been decided against her after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to her. 6 After hearing the petitioner it has been held that the disputed land situated in Khasra No. 374 has an entry of "Bade Jhad Ke Jungle" and thus it has been found that the Forest Department has not illegally encroached upon the land of the petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner under section 89 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code has been rejected. He would further submit that now the grievance of the petitioner has been completely and adequately redressed at this juncture. The petitioner has now no other ground to say that no opportunity of hearing was given to her and the respondent forest department is illegally constructing a wall on the aforementioned property. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 9. Vide order dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P-4), Collector- Korba/respondent No.6 has passed the order as under : " ्ቚकरण ेሰ ्ቚस्तु तु अभिलेख , अधिकर अभिलेख / ेሰसाहतु खसार / बी -1 अनु सार वादधिेሰ आवादिदक अथवा उनुक पूवा ोሞ" क नुेሰ दोሞ चले आ रह ह$। ऐसा ቝኌ(तितु ेሰ आवादिदक क* धिेሰ पूवा ोሞ साेሰय सा ቝኌ(तु रह ह$ तु, वातु ेሰनु साेሰय ेሰ ह,नु चतिहय। (ले तिनुर्ቌण ्ቚतितुवादनु पू.चनुेሰ दिदनु.क 26/2/2013 अनु सार रोሞस्वा सावा/ नुቋኋ 74-75 ेሰ ख0नु.0 283 रकबी 0.30 एकड़ वानु तिवाकसा तिनुगनु र,पूडी नुसा र पूर ቝኌ(तु ह$ तुथ ख0नु.0 272 रकबी 1.08 ए० वन विवभाग के घेरे ेሰ होन के केरेण नवन सव नቋኋ ेሰ दቦኋया नहो गया हो। इसस ्ቢ्ቖ होता विके वदभामिेሰ वन विवकेस विनगेሰ के नसरे एव" वन विवभाग के घेरे ेሰ हो। विकेन्ता$ उक्ता भामिेሰ वन विवभाग के के्ቌ 2200 के नቋኋ ेሰ इन्ቖኋज नहो हो। ऐस ቝኌ,विता ेሰ अधि/न, न्यायालया रेजस्व एव" वन विवभाग के स"या$क्ता टी3ेሰ गठनकेरे ेሰ5के ज"च केरेता हुए विनयाेሰन$सरे आवदिदके के: भामिेሰ के धिचन्हो"विकेता विकेया जव। अ/न, न्यायालया के आदቦኋ दिदन"के 29/7/13 ቔ኎$दिटीपूण होन स विनरेस्ता विकेया जता हो।" 7 10. The Sub-Divisional Officer(R), Korba has passed the order on 14.02.2024 stating that the claim site is part of the protected forest area number P-989. A survey error occurred, and it has not been proven that the land undisputedly belongs to the petitioner. The fundamental proof of ownership is lawful possession of the land, which the petitioner has not been able to prove. The claim site is located entirely within the undisputed protected forest area compartment number Old 2200 P, New 989 P. In the 2005-06 Revenue Survey, this disputed land was recorded as Khasra No. 374, a large shrub forest. The Forest Department's unauthorized occupation of the petitioner’s land is not proven. 11. On perusal of the order dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector- Korba/respondent No.6, it reveals that as per punchnama report, 2013, the subject land belonged to the petitioner. The name of the petitioner and her ancestors was registered in the records, rights records/Mashati Khasra/B-1, then why is it not registered at present? Further, it reveals that the trial Court also sought an investigation report from the Forest Department, Korba, and the Land Records, Korba, regarding the petitioner’s land. Following this, the Forest Department and the Land Records jointly inspected the site and prepared a panchnama on 26.02.2013, which stated that the subject land belonged to the petitioner. However, the Forest Department stated that the petitioner’s land was surrounded by barbed wire by the Forest 8 Department. 12. Further, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner belongs to Pahadi Korwa tribe which has been identified and categorized by the Government of India as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG). The President of India, under Article 342 of the Constitution, makes public announcements to declare which tribes or tribal communities are to be considered "Scheduled Tribes" (STs). Within this broader category, the more vulnerable groups are sub-categorized as PVTGs for targeted development. The Korwa tribe are often referred to as the "adopted children of the President of India" due to this special, more vulnerable status, which implies a greater need for focused Government attention and development. 13. Looking to the above facts, it is directed to the respondent authorities that if the name of the petitioner and her ancestors was registered in the revenue records in the year 2013, then why is it not registered at present? The Respondent Authorities are directed to minutely inspect the revenue records with regard to subject land and whose name entered in the records since long and thereafter pass appropriate orders as early as possible. It is further directed that during the course of inspection, if it is found that the subject land is in the name of the petitioner and her ancestors, the respondent authorities are directed to initiate the proceedings for 9 grant of compensation in favour of the petitioner as per the extant policy/statute. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant