1 2026:CGHC:20170 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3414 of 2022 1 - Mazrul Haque S/o Late Abdul Kareem Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Devgai, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Balrampur - Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department Balrampur - Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. 5 - Dilwasi W/o Late Maharu R/o Village Devgai, Police Station And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to set aside the Patta, which has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 5. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner has been in continuous possession of land bearing Khasra No. 476, admeasuring 0.43 hectare, situated at Village Devgai, P.H. No. 33, Revenue Circle Ramchandrapur, Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur, for the last about 40 years, and his name is duly recorded in the revenue records in respect of the said land that despite such long-standing possession, the respondent authorities, namely respondents No. 2 to 4, without following the procedure prescribed under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, have illegally granted patta of the said land in favour of respondent No. 5, who had not even submitted any application for 3 allotment that the petitioner has obtained information under the Right to Information Act which reveals that the patta has been granted by manipulation and forged entries in the records, in clear contravention of law that being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Collector seeking cancellation of the said patta, however, no action has been taken till date and that the petitioner continues to remain in possession of the land, yet the illegal allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 subsists, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in granting patta in favour of respondent No. 5 is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and malafide, as the same has been done in complete violation of the provisions of the Rules, 2007, without following the mandatory procedure for recognition and verification of rights; it is contended that the petitioner has been in settled possession of the land for several decades and his name is duly recorded in the revenue records, and therefore, the allotment of the same land to a third party is unjust and unsustainable in law; it is further submitted that the patta has been granted on the basis of forged and manipulated entries, which is evident from the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, and thus the entire process is vitiated by fraud; it is also urged that despite the petitioner having approached the Collector for cancellation of the patta, no action has been taken, reflecting inaction and failure of the authorities to exercise 4 jurisdiction vested in them; it is therefore prayed that the patta granted in favour of respondent No. 5 be set aside and appropriate directions be issued to protect the possession and rights of the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account the nature of the grievance raised, the concerned Collector is hereby directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application in accordance with law, after affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat