1 2025:CGHC:21289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 537 of 2020 1 - Narayan Prasad Krishe S/o Dhaniram Krishe Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Neur Tahsiln Pandaria District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Collector District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Dy. Forest Officer Forest Sub Divisional, Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pandaria, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Harshal Chauhan, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Pramod Ramteke, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.05.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to release the lands khasra no. 65/1, 65/2, 65/3 & 65/4 situated at Village-Kusiyari, P.H.No. 2, Tahsil-Pandaria, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) along with teak trees planted it, in favour of petitioner. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to pay compensation to the petitioner for depriving him to enjoy his property. 10.3. To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is son of late Dhaniram. He would contend that the land bearing Survey Nos.65/2 & 65/3, admeasuring 6.2 acres, is still recorded in the name of late Dhaniram. He would contend that the forest officials without obtaining prior permission from the petitioner planted teak trees on the subject property. He would contend that the respondents have admitted the fact that due to mistake, the Forest Department planted teak trees on that land. He would submit that the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities, requesting return of the land or appropriate compensation but till date, the representation has not been decided. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 6. Taking into consideration the dispute involved in the present case, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No.2 within a period of 30 days and in turn, the said authority is directed to take a decision on such representation in an objective manner, preferably within a period of 120 days. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi