1 2026:CGHC:19768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2029 of 2026 1 - Ejaz S/o Late Abdul Rauf Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Amandon,tahil And P.O. Pratappur, Police Station Pratappur District Sarguja (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Revenue Depatment Capital Complex Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Collector Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 3 - Sub -Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4 - The Tahsildar Pratappur District - Surguja (C.G.). 5 - President Forest Right Committee, Village Amandon, Gram Panchayat -Amandon, Tahsil -Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the present Petitioner from the Respondent authorities concerned for kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, order / orders, direction / directions, thereby setting-aside impugned order Dt. 17.04.2026 and 23-01-2026 (ANN P-1), issued by the Respondent No.04, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant the lease to the petitioner or pass any other order in favour of petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost. 10.4 Pass any other order under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner’s father, Abdul Rauf, expired in the year 2022 leaving behind the petitioner Ejaz and his sister Shehnaj, and the family has been in long-standing possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 307 (0.50 hectare out of 3 1.44 hectare), 308 (0.10 hectare out of 0.30 hectare), and Khasra No. 58 (0.04 hectare out of 0.71 hectare), situated at Village Amandon, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.), where their ancestors have been residing and cultivating for more than 60–65 years after developing the land from forest area; that the petitioner’s father had earlier instituted Civil Suit No. 42A/1996 seeking declaration and permanent injunction, wherein a status quo order dated 08.04.1996 was granted, and his name was also recorded in the encroachment register on 15.05.2007 that proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code were initiated, to which a reply was submitted seeking regularization and grant of lease and the Gram Panchayat as well as the Forest Rights Committee passed resolutions recommending grant of lease/forest rights in favour of the petitioner and his family, which are still pending consideration before the competent authorities; that similarly situated persons have been granted interim protection by this Hon’ble Court in WPC Nos. 5628/2025 and 6393/2025 and even the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to decide his claim, but the same has not been complied with. Despite the pendency of the petitioner’s claim for lease and forest rights, respondent No. 4 has issued impugned notices/orders dated 23.01.2026 and 17.04.2026 directing removal of the petitioner from the land by 05.02.2026 without following due process of law, thereby compelling the petitioner to file the present petition. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notices/orders issued by respondent No. 4 are illegal, arbitrary, and in gross violation of the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, particularly Section 4(5), which clearly prohibits eviction of forest dwellers until their claims are duly recognized and verified; it is contended that the petitioner and his family have been in continuous possession of the land for several decades and have already submitted applications for grant of lease and recognition of forest rights, which are still pending consideration, and therefore, any attempt to dispossess them during the pendency of such proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction; it is further submitted that the impugned action has been taken without affording any opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and without considering the recommendations made by the Gram Panchayat and the Forest Rights Committee; reliance is also placed on orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in similar matters granting interim protection to similarly situated persons; it is urged that the petitioner has no alternative means of livelihood and is solely dependent upon the land in question, and the proposed eviction, particularly during the ongoing agricultural/monsoon period, would cause irreparable hardship; it is further contended that the respondent authorities have failed to comply with earlier directions of this Court to consider the petitioner’s claim, and their action is violative of Articles 14 and 21 5 of the Constitution of India; accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned notices/orders be set aside and appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s claim for lease/forest rights in accordance with law while protecting his possession in the meantime. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the provisions of law for redressal of his grievance, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and does not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the nature of the controversy, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the competent authority, i.e., SDO (Revenue), Pratappur, by filing an appeal within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the event such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, within a further period of 15 days. 7. It is directed that till the expiry of the aforesaid period, and subject to the petitioner filing the appeal within time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned 6 orders. It is, however, made clear that this protection is purely interim in nature and shall not enure to the benefit of the petitioner beyond the period specified herein. The appellate authority shall decide the matter independently, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat