1 2026:CGHC:14295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1316 of 2026 Mohan Gupta S/o Shri Hazari Lal Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Chivarakuta, Police Station- Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 2 - Forest Range Officer Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.) 3 - The Collector District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 25/03/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly allow this petition and quash the impugned letter dated 20.02.2026 (ANNEXURE P/1), impugned letter dated 14.02.2026 (ANNEXURE P/2), and impugned notice dated 02.01.2026 (ANNEXURE P-3), in the interest of justice. 2 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to follow due procedure of law and after proper demarcation in presence of petitioner, determine the possession or encroachment or illegal construction of the petitioner if any. 10.3 Any other relief which deemed fit and proper may also be issued looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the interest of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that forefather of the petitioner had been granted Forest Right Certificate in respect of 1.400 hectare of land of Khasra No.320/5 situated at village Chivrakuta, District Mahasamund, ( C.G.). Subsequently, the said land was inherited by the petitioner, and thus, they have been in possession of the said land for more than 75 years. He further submits that the after obtaining prior permission from the said Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has constructed three sheds on the said land for the purpose of protecting the crops. It is contended that earlier on 24.12.2025, respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing WPC No. 429 of 2026, but the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2026 holding therein that only a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which cannot be challenged by way of filing aforesaid writ petition. He further submits that subsequently, forest case was registered against the petitioner without serving any due notice and on the basis of that forest case, respondent No. 2 conducted unilateral enquiry at the petitioner's land without his presence or any prior information and made communication (Annexure P-2) dated 14.02.2026 alleging therein that he has encroached upon 1.110 hectares forest land apart from the aforesaid land of 1.400 hectares allotted to him and also constructed Gas Godown, goat shade, etc. , which is violative of Section 4(4) of the Forest Right Act. He further submits that based on said communication (Annexure P-2) dated 14.02.2026, respondent No. 1 has issued memo (Annexure P-1) dated 20.02.2026 to 3 Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Mahasamund, Disrict Mahasamund (C.G.) to take appropriate steps in respect of ‘Forest Right Certificate’ issued in favour of the petitioner as per applicable law / rules. It is further argued that while making such communication, the petitioner has neither given notice nor provided any opportunity of being heard, therefore, both the communications i.e. 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) & 14.02.2026 (Annexure P-2) are invalid, hence, he prays that this petition may be admitted for hearing. 3. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is premature, as communication (Annexure P-1) & (Annexure P-2) are only internal communication between respondents No. 2 and 1, hence, the petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It appears from the records that a ‘Forest Rights Certificate’ was issued in favor of the petitioner’s ancestors, which the petitioner has inherited in respect of the subject land. Perusal of communication (Annexure P-2) dated 14.02.2026 made by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 reveals that complaint has been made against the petitioner by him (respondent No. 2) alleging that the petitioner has encroached upon 1.110 hectares land apart from the aforesaid land of 1.400 hectares allotted to him, and has also carried out certain constructions thereon. Based on said communication, respondent No. 1 has issued memo (Annexure P-1) dated 20.02.2026 to Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development to take appropriate steps in respect of ‘Forest Right Certificate’ issued in favour of the petitioner as per applicable law / rules, as he has violated the provisions contained in Section 4(4) of the Forest Right Act. 4 6. Aforesaid facts clearly reveals that both the communications i.e. Annexures P-1 & P-2, are internal communication between respondents No. 2 and 1 and they are not the adjudicatory authority, therefore, issuance of notice to petitioner in respect of said communication is not required. Thus, the instant petition filed by the petitioner is premature, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get relief sought for by him. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.03.28 18:12:57 +0530