1 2026:CGHC:23186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2544 of 2026 1 - Lalan Gupta S/o Late Puran Gupta, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Knakpur, Ward No. 9 Tahsil Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Balrampur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (R) Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar, Tahsil Ramanujganj District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 15.05.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being treated as an encroacher, whereas in fact the petitioner and VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 his predecessors have been in continuous possession over the forest land in question since the year 1974. It is further submitted that, having regard to such long-standing possession, the petitioner cannot be forcibly dispossessed or evicted by the concerned Tehsildar in an arbitrary manner, and any action for removal of possession is wholly illegal, without authority of law, and liable to be set aside. 2. Learned State counsel raises objection and submits that the petitioner has no legal right to claim protection of possession over the forest land in question. It is further submitted that mere long possession since 1974 does not confer any right, title or interest in forest land, and the petitioner cannot claim any protection on that basis. Accordingly, it is prayed that the contention raised by the petitioner regarding protection of possession is untenable and deserves to be rejected. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the statement made by learned State counsel that no application for grant of lease is presently pending on behalf of the petitioner, and that the only application, if any, appears to have been filed by the petitioner’s father in the year 1974 which was either not pursued or was dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law, it is observed that the claim of the petitioner regarding pendency of any lease application is not borne out from the record. 3 4. 3 4. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit an appropriate fresh application before the competent authority/Collector concerned, if so advised within a period of four weeks from today. In the event such an application is filed, the Collector shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of its presentation, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 5. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any right, title or interest over the land in question merely on the basis of possession, and the issue of alleged encroachment shall be subject to determination by the competent authority in accordance with law. It is further observed that the rights of the petitioner, if any, shall abide by the decision of the competent authority on the application to be filed. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha