ORDER : 1. The contents and factual matrix involved in all the writ petitions would revel that the bone of contention in them is one and same, as such, all these writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The petitioners are residents of Village Chiranga, Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja, in the State of Chhattisgarh, which is notified as a Scheduled Area under the Constitution of India. They are aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Collector, Ambikapur, in Revenue Case No. 5/A-19/19-20, whereby village land bearing Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77 was allotted to the General Manager, District Business and Industry Centre (Zila Vyapar Evam Udyog Kendra), Surguja, for the purpose of establishing an industrial project. The said land, however, has historically been used as common village land for nistar purposes, such as grazing, cultivation, collection of forest produce, access to water sources, and gathering of firewood, resources vital to the subsistence and livelihood of the local tribal community. The petitioners contend that the impugned allotment violates multiple statutory safeguards, including the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the Forest Rights Act, as their rights and claims under the Act have not been determined or settled, nor has the mandatory process under Section 6 of the Act been followed. Aggrieved, the petitioners had earlier challenged the same allotment by filing W.P. (C) No. 4519/2021, wherein this Court, by order dated 11.11.2021, was pleased to dispose of the petition with directions to the Collector to examine whether proceedings under the Forest Rights Act had been initiated and to conduct an inquiry into allegations that the Gram Sabha resolution, based on which the land was allotted, was forged and fabricated. However, in contravention of the order passed by this Court, the inquiry was conducted not by the Collector but by the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Sitapur, thereby rendering the entire process procedurally defective and devoid of legal sanctity. The said inquiry was superficial, lacking transparency, and appears to be a mere formality aimed at legitimizing an illegal allotment. The S.D.O. summarily concluded that the land did not fall within the scope of Section 6 of the Forest Rights Act, without addressing the crucial issue of pending claims. The said inquiry was superficial, lacking transparency, and appears to be a mere formality aimed at legitimizing an illegal allotment. The S.D.O. summarily concluded that the land did not fall within the scope of Section 6 of the Forest Rights Act, without addressing the crucial issue of pending claims. Additionally, the S.D.O. recorded statements from eight individuals who allegedly attended a Gram Sabha meeting on 08.08.2020 and claimed that the proposal for setting up an aluminum plant was unanimously approved. However, all eight individuals astonishingly claimed to have presided over the meeting, and one Shanti Das, an elected Panch and non-tribal, also claimed to have presided, which is in blatant violation of Section 129-B of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which mandates that Gram Sabha meetings be presided over by a single Scheduled Tribe member elected by the majority of members present, and expressly prohibits any member of the Panchayat from presiding. Furthermore, no prior notice was issued to the villagers regarding the said inquiry, thereby denying them a fair opportunity to participate or present objections. Despite repeated representations submitted by the petitioners pointing out the procedural violations and the fraudulent nature of the inquiry, no remedial action has been taken by the authorities, and acting on the flawed report submitted by the S.D.O., the Collector has proceeded to authorize the industrial entity to take possession of the land. The entire process is thus vitiated by illegality, procedural impropriety, and suppression of material facts, causing irreparable harm to the petitioners, whose customary and statutory rights over the land remain unrecognized and unprotected. 3. Writ petition No. 336 of 2023 has been taken as lead case in order to decide the issues involved in these matters. The petitioners in the said writ petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. Issue a writ of certiorari and set- aside order dated 19.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by Collector Surguja in Revenue Case No. 5/A-19/19-20. 10.2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate disciplinary and criminal proceedings against respondent no. 13. 10.3. Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 4. The brief facts of the case, as projected in W.P. (C) No. 336 of 2023, are that the petitioners are long-standing residents of Village Chiranga, situated within Gram Panchayat Chiranga, under the administrative jurisdiction of Block Batauli in the District of Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 10.3. Pass any other order the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 4. The brief facts of the case, as projected in W.P. (C) No. 336 of 2023, are that the petitioners are long-standing residents of Village Chiranga, situated within Gram Panchayat Chiranga, under the administrative jurisdiction of Block Batauli in the District of Surguja, Chhattisgarh. The population of the village, as indicated by the voters’ list, is approximately 1,800 individuals. Chiranga is predominantly inhabited by members of various Scheduled Tribes, including the Oraon, Kanwar, Nagesia, Korwa, Manjhi, and Saunta communities. In addition, there are around 70 families from the Scheduled Caste category and only a handful from the Other Backward Classes (OBC), reflecting the tribal and marginalized demographic composition of the village. Crucially, Village Chiranga falls within a notified Scheduled Area under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which provides special protections to tribal populations, especially with respect to land rights, forest use, and self-governance through gram sabhas as per the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA). The geographical layout of the village encompasses a mix of mountains, forests, and plains. The livelihood of the villagers is deeply interwoven with their natural surroundings; they rely on agriculture, collection of forest produce such as Mahua, Tendu, Harra, Baheda, Amla, and medicinal herbs (jadi-butis), as well as livestock rearing and firewood collection. These activities are vital not just economically but also culturally and traditionally. The dispute arose when, by memorandum no. /161/Vachak/2020, the Collector of Surguja ordered the transfer of certain Government land (Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, 70/77, comprising a total of 91.942 hectares) to the Department of Industries for establishing an industrial project. The Tehsildar, Batauli, subsequently initiated revenue case No. 01/A-19/2019-2020, and issued a notice on 12.10.2020 informing the villagers about the proposed allotment of the specified land parcels to the General Manager, Zila Vyapar Evam Udhyog Kendra, Ambikapur. Notably, the land in question is recorded as mountainous land and has been used by villagers for generations for purposes such as grazing, cultivation, and collection of forest resources. Although objections to the proposal were permitted until 29.10.2020, the notice was not officially communicated to the Gram Panchayat, and villagers only became aware of it on 25.10.2020. Upon discovering the proposal, the villagers collectively submitted their objections to the Tehsildar on 27.10.2020. Although objections to the proposal were permitted until 29.10.2020, the notice was not officially communicated to the Gram Panchayat, and villagers only became aware of it on 25.10.2020. Upon discovering the proposal, the villagers collectively submitted their objections to the Tehsildar on 27.10.2020. Their objections emphatically reiterated that the land had historically been used as common village land for nistar purposes and that it was under active claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The villagers also invoked their constitutional rights under PESA, which mandates that no land acquisition in scheduled areas can occur without the consent of the gram sabha. The villagers’ objections were collectively signed by 760 individuals, indicating a strong, unified opposition. In response, the General Manager of the Zila Vyapar Evam Udhyog Kendra summarily rejected the villagers’ claims, arguing that the land was not recorded as nistar land under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code and that no official claim forms or gram sabha resolutions regarding forest rights had been submitted. The manager further alleged that consent for the project had been obtained via a Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020. However, this claim was highly contested. Villagers allege that no such Gram Sabha was ever held and that the resolution was a forgery orchestrated by the Sarpanch Pushpa Painkra, Secretary Bharat Singh, and the General Manager Abdul Sakir. This forged resolution became the foundation upon which the Collector later passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2021 approving the project. It was only on 08.02.2021 that legal representation was arranged by the petitioners. The advocates sought 45 days to obtain records under the Right to Information Act (RTI) and submit a rejoinder. However, the Tehsildar refused to grant this reasonable time and scheduled the next hearing for 11.02.2021. An application seeking adjournment was filed on that date citing the need to file revision against the previous order and produce documents proving the fabricated nature of the Gram Sabha resolution. Supporting materials included a police complaint and RTI applications. Importantly, a genuine Gram Sabha had been held earlier on 08.03.2020, during which the villagers unanimously rejected the proposal for the Aluminum Plant on environmental and livelihood grounds. Another objection was submitted on 22.07.2020 reinforcing the opposition. Supporting materials included a police complaint and RTI applications. Importantly, a genuine Gram Sabha had been held earlier on 08.03.2020, during which the villagers unanimously rejected the proposal for the Aluminum Plant on environmental and livelihood grounds. Another objection was submitted on 22.07.2020 reinforcing the opposition. Further, to prove the falsity of the alleged Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020, the villagers obtained a certificate dated 31.12.2020 from the Sarpanch and Secretary themselves, declaring that no such meeting had taken place, and no official records were maintained. Following this, on 03.02.2021, the villagers submitted a criminal complaint to the local police station seeking action under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC against the three accused officials. Since no action was taken, a further application was made under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. to the Superintendent of Police on 07.08.2021. Additionally, on 14.07.2021, another Gram Sabha was held where villagers unanimously recalled and rejected the forged resolution dated 08.08.2020. Legally, the land in question is recorded as Gairmajarua and reserved for public use including grazing and farming. It is also identified in revenue records as Pahad Chattan (mountain/rocky land), making it geologically unsuitable for industrial purposes. This designation affects nearby landowners, including some petitioners, who would face serious restrictions if industrial activity were to commence in the region. Apart from collective nistar rights, many villagers have been in individual possession of these lands for housing and cultivation. However, their individual forest rights claims under the FRA were never submitted to the Gram Sabha as required by law. RTI responses shockingly revealed that their claims had already been rejected without any formal communication or opportunity to appeal, in clear violation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The process of recognition of community forest rights was also flawed. While a community forest title was technically issued, the demarcation was improper, and villagers were neither informed nor allowed to participate in the process or file appeals. Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77 all lie within the village boundaries and are entitled to protection under the FRA. The villagers made a final representation dated 13.01.2021 to the Collector objecting to the land transfer, reinforcing its traditional and practical use for nistar. Eventually, the petitioners filed W.P. (C) No. 4477/2021, alleging that the land transfer violated revenue circulars, PESA, and the Forest Rights Act, and was based on a forged Gram Sabha resolution. The villagers made a final representation dated 13.01.2021 to the Collector objecting to the land transfer, reinforcing its traditional and practical use for nistar. Eventually, the petitioners filed W.P. (C) No. 4477/2021, alleging that the land transfer violated revenue circulars, PESA, and the Forest Rights Act, and was based on a forged Gram Sabha resolution. Other villagers filed similar writ petitions. On 11.11.2021, this Court disposed of the matter with directions to the Collector to verify proceedings under Section 6 of the FRA and to investigate the authenticity of the Gram Sabha resolution. However, in violation of the directions issued by this Court, the inquiry was conducted by the S.D.O. Sitapur, not the Collector. The findings of S.D.O. were superficial, failed to examine pending FRA claims, and absurdly recorded statements of multiple villagers all claiming to have presided over the same Gram Sabha, a legal impossibility under Section 129-B of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993, which mandates a single tribal presiding member. The inquiry was conducted without notifying or involving the villagers, and its fraudulent nature prompted the villagers to file yet another representation on 25.02.2022 demanding compliance with the High Court order. A final representation was filed on 19.07.2022, stating that respondent No. 12 was trying to dispossess the villagers based on the fraudulent inquiry and forged resolution. The facts overwhelmingly demonstrate a systematic bypassing of statutory protections granted to tribal communities under the Fifth Schedule, PESA, and FRA. The impugned order passed by Collector is rooted in a fabricated Gram Sabha resolution, flawed inquiry, and violation of procedural safeguards, thus necessitating its immediate quashing. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned allotment order is in clear breach of the power of Collector under the aforementioned provision. This Paripatra permits the transfer of government land exclusively for public purpose to government departments, whereas in the present case, the land is being diverted for an aluminium plant by a private entity, Respondent No. 12, which is impermissible. Further, the said provision places a statutory obligation on the authorities to examine whether the land is used for nistar purposes, and to ensure that villagers’ nistar needs are not adversely impacted, particularly when a large area is involved. Further, the said provision places a statutory obligation on the authorities to examine whether the land is used for nistar purposes, and to ensure that villagers’ nistar needs are not adversely impacted, particularly when a large area is involved. The impugned decision has been taken without any quantification or assessment of nistar usage, despite the fact that the land in question is extensively used by villagers for grazing, storage of paira, and other communal uses. Objections were filed by the petitioners and 760 other villagers in response to the memorandum dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure P-4), clearly stating that the land forms part of the village nistar and their forest rights had not yet been adjudicated. These objections were dismissed summarily, without application of mind and without any detailed consideration on merits. The disputed land, measuring 91.942 hectares across Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77, is situated in Village Chiranga, Block Batauli, District Sarguja, which is a notified Scheduled Area under the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution (as per Scheduled Areas Order, 2003 – Annexure P/30). Though classified as “Government Land, Pahad Chattan” in revenue records (Annexure P/14), the land is in continuous use by villagers for nistar purposes. It is also being cultivated and inhabited by individuals whose forest rights claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 have not been settled. Evidence of agricultural and homestead use by petitioners is placed on record (Annexure P/16 to P/18). The villagers have no alternative nistar land available, as confirmed by the State’s own Nistar Patrak (Annexure R-13). More gravely, it has come to light through an RTI application dated 25.1.2021 (Annexure P/26) that individual claims of the petitioners under the FRA were rejected without any notice, hearing, or communication to the claimants. No rejection orders have been served, and no opportunity for appeal has been granted. This violates the mandatory procedure under the Forest Rights Act and is indicative of systemic non-compliance. 6. In Wildlife First v. Union of India , W.P. (C) No. 109/2008 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court raised similar concerns about arbitrary rejections of FRA claims without transparency or legal compliance. Despite a state-wide review following the directions of Supreme Court, the petitioners were never involved or informed. The Gram Sabha has been issued a Community Forest Rights title under Rule 8(h) of the FRA (Annexure P/19), which includes the disputed khasras. Despite a state-wide review following the directions of Supreme Court, the petitioners were never involved or informed. The Gram Sabha has been issued a Community Forest Rights title under Rule 8(h) of the FRA (Annexure P/19), which includes the disputed khasras. However, the villagers were never consulted in this process and have no knowledge of how this title was granted. Additionally, “Karmi Tongri”, a sacred site of worship for the village, is situated on this land (photographic evidence at Annexure P/38), underscoring the deep cultural connection of the villagers to the land. Under Section 4(d) of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), every Gram Sabha is legally empowered to protect community resources, customs, and cultural identity. Furthermore, Section 4(i) of the PESA Act mandates consultation with the Gram Sabha before any land acquisition or resettlement in Scheduled Areas. These rights are further reinforced under Section 41 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which requires prior consent of the Gram Sabha for land acquisition in Scheduled Areas, especially where tribal communities are impacted. The law even extends rehabilitation rights to non-title holders and informal occupants. No such consent has been obtained in the present case. No development plan or compensation mechanism has been prepared. There has been complete non-compliance with the statutory scheme. The petitioners reiterate that land acquisition in Scheduled Areas without Gram Sabha consent is null and void in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests , (2013) 6 SCC 476 held that environmental clearances and land acquisitions affecting tribal lands cannot proceed without lawful and informed consent of the Gram Sabha. The instant matter falls squarely within the ratio of this judgment. The entire defence of State rests on a purported Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020 (Annexure R/5), wherein it is alleged that the villagers consented to the land transfer. The petitioners categorically deny that any such meeting took place. During the COVID-19 pandemic, no Gram Sabha meeting was convened, and the documents presented are forged and fabricated. The Hon’ble Court, recognising the seriousness of these allegations, directed an enquiry by the Collector in connected writ petitions. The petitioners categorically deny that any such meeting took place. During the COVID-19 pandemic, no Gram Sabha meeting was convened, and the documents presented are forged and fabricated. The Hon’ble Court, recognising the seriousness of these allegations, directed an enquiry by the Collector in connected writ petitions. However, the report submitted by the SDO suffers from several legal and factual infirmities like there was no prior notice of the enquiry; villagers were not informed or invited to depose. Only eight statements were recorded, all from persons allegedly presiding over the meeting, contrary to Section 129-B of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, which mandates that a Gram Sabha meeting be presided over by one elected member from among those present. The report is entirely silent on advance notice of the meeting, as required under the Chhattisgarh Gram Sabha (Sammilan ki Prakriya) Niyam, 1994. 7. Further, as per the own records of State (Annexure D/1), there were 1695 registered voters in the Gram Sabha. A quorum of one- third (565 persons) was necessary. Yet the attendance register (Annexure D/2) shows only 106 people present, making the meeting invalid ab initio. Lastly, respondents - the then Sarpanch and Sachiv, against whom allegations of forgery have been levelled, have filed responses only in their personal capacities and not on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. Complaints have already been made against them before the relevant authorities. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the land allotment made to respondent is illegal, void, and contrary to both statutory and constitutional protections available to the petitioners, the rights of the petitioners under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the PESA Act, 1996 have been grossly violated, the Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020 is fabricated and cannot be relied upon, no lawful consent was ever obtained from the Gram Sabha as required under the RFCTLARR Act; An independent enquiry may be ordered into the preparation of the Gram Sabha proceedings and all proceedings based on the impugned resolution and land allotment be stayed or quashed. 8. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 9 and Mr. 8. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 to 9 and Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No. 10 & 11 jointly submit that the writ petitions, as instituted by the petitioners, are not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed at the very threshold on account of lack of locus standi, suppression of material facts, and non-disclosure of any enforceable legal right over the subject land. The land in question, bearing Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77 admeasuring a total area of 91.942 hectares situated at Village Cheranga, District Surguja, is Government Revenue Land, categorically recorded as “Pahad Chattan” in the revenue records, and was validly allotted by the District Collector, Surguja to the Zila Vyapar and Udhyog Kendra, a Government agency, under Clause 5 of Part-4 of the Revenue Book Circular, which has statutory force. The land is neither recorded in Wajib-ul-Arz nor in Nistar Patrak, nor is it classified as forest land under the Forest Rights Act, 2006; hence, any claim of right or interest by the petitioner under that Act is wholly misconceived and untenable. In fact, although the petitioner was initially included in the list of potential beneficiaries under the Forest Rights Act, he was subsequently declared ineligible in accordance with law, and this finding was never challenged before the competent appellate authority, thereby attaining finality. Furthermore, the petitioner was not in possession or recorded owner of the land in question and has failed to demonstrate any personal or legal injury, thereby lacking the status of an "aggrieved person" under Article 226 of the Constitution. Moreover, in compliance with the directions passed by this Court in WPC No. 4334/2021, a comprehensive enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector into the authenticity of the Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020, wherein statements of the Sarpanch, Secretary, members of the Gram Sabha, and other stakeholders were recorded, and it was categorically established that the Gram Sabha meeting was duly convened, the resolution was unanimously passed, and the presence register was signed by 106 members, none of whom objected to the proposal for allotment of land for industrial purposes. The complaint made by the petitioner regarding alleged forgery was duly rejected by the Collector vide order dated 03.03.2022 after full application of mind, and that order has not been challenged in the instant petitions or any other forum, thus attaining finality. The entire process of allotment was conducted in strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the Revenue Book Circular, with public notices issued, objections invited, Gram Sabha resolution obtained, joint inspection conducted by Revenue, Forest, and Environment Departments, and Panchanama and spot verification done in the presence of villagers and Government officials, all of which led to the conclusion that the land was vacant, Government-owned, and suitable for industrial use. Thereafter, possession was handed over to the Zila Vyapar and Udhyog Kendra, which in turn handed it over to CSIDC, and a valid lease deed for 99 years was executed in favour of respondent No. 12, Maa Kudargarhi Alumina Refinery Pvt. Ltd., strictly in accordance with law. The petitioners has suppressed these critical facts and has attempted to reopen settled issues by filing the present writ petitions with unclean hands. The allegation that the Collector did not independently conduct the enquiry is baseless, as the Sub-Divisional Officer merely conducted a fact-finding enquiry under administrative instructions, and the Collector later conducted a proper enquiry by summoning the concerned Gram Panchayat officials, evaluating the record, and issuing a speaking order rejecting the complaint. Hence, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, filed by an unauthorised and uninterested person who has neither right, title, interest, nor possession over the land in question, and who is indulging in vexatious litigation, deserves to be dismissed. 9. Mr. Akash Pandey and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent No. 12, submits that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and deserve to be dismissed. The impugned order dated 19.02.2021 concerns the allotment of Government land bearing Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77 in Village Chiranga, Tahsil Batauli, to the General Manager, Zila Vyapar Avam Udyog Kendra, Surguja, for establishing an industrial project. The land is undisputedly Government-owned “Pahad Chattan” land and is not subject to any private, community, or forest rights. The petitioners have failed to establish any legal right, title, or interest over the land and have not produced any lease or settlement documents in their favor. The land is undisputedly Government-owned “Pahad Chattan” land and is not subject to any private, community, or forest rights. The petitioners have failed to establish any legal right, title, or interest over the land and have not produced any lease or settlement documents in their favor. Objections regarding procedural lapses or non- consideration of nistar and forest rights are unfounded, as the record confirms compliance with all requirements. The Gram Sabha held on 08.08.2020 was duly convened with 106 attendees, including local leaders, and passed the resolution for allotment unanimously. The petitioners’ contradictory claims about the occurrence and quorum of Gram Sabha further undermine their case. Their invocation of PESA and the Forest Rights Act is misplaced since the land is not forest land, and the project involves Alumina Trihydrate, which is not a minor mineral requiring Gram Sabha consent under PESA. The land was validly allotted through a lease deed dated 30.03.2022 by the Government of Chhattisgarh after fulfilling all statutory and environmental approvals. Allegations about the project impacting the nearby Ghunghutta River are incorrect, as the river is situated approximately 900 meters away, and the Irrigation Department has approved the project. The petitioners had earlier challenged the Collector’s order through a revision petition but withdrew it without seeking further relief, rendering the order final. The Collector also conducted an independent inquiry confirming the allotment’s legality, which remains unchallenged. Therefore, the petitioners lack locus standi, have not exhausted alternative remedies, and the writ petitions are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 10. Mr. Ghanshayam Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.13 would submits that the petitioner has no legal right or locus standi over the Government revenue land allotted to the Zila Vyapar and Udhyog Kendra, Surguja, and therefore is not an aggrieved party entitled to maintain writ petition under Article 226. The Gram Sabha of Chiranga, after due procedure and with no objections from villagers or concerned persons, unanimously passed a resolution on 08.08.2020 approving the allotment of 91.942 hectares of government land for industrial purposes to the District Trade and Industrial Centre. The land in question is recorded as revenue land under the head of Pahad Chattan and is not forest land; hence, claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, are not applicable. The land in question is recorded as revenue land under the head of Pahad Chattan and is not forest land; hence, claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, are not applicable. Following a Court directive, an enquiry was conducted by the District Collector, confirming the authenticity of the Gram Sabha resolution and the proper allotment process. Statements from Gram Panchayat officials and villagers further supported the legitimacy of the resolution and the allotment. No forged documents were found, and despite attempts by some individuals to dispute the Gram Sabha proceedings, the enquiry upheld the allotment. Therefore, the challenge of petitioners lacks merit, and the petition should be dismissed accordingly. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the record with utmost circumspection. 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 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. 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. 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 , (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. 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 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 , 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 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 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 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.