1 2026:CGHC:21939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2346 of 2026 1 - Tarasingh Baiga S/o Samaru Aged About 56 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Lamtu Baiga (Lantu) S/o Bodhu Aged About 58 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 - Soukhi Ram Baiga S/o Soulu Singh Aged About 46 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Takhat Baiga S/o Govardhan Aged About 41 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - Dasru Baiga S/o Tara Singh Aged About 39 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 6 - Jaiyata Singh Meravi S/o Gugadu Meravi Aged About 43 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 7 - Karan Baiga S/o Sukdev Aged About 36 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 8 - Shahar Baiga S/o Diyal Aged About 32 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 9 - Devsingh Baiga S/o Lamtu Aged About 19 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 10 - Tulsi Baiga S/o Savanu Baiga Aged About 47 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 11 - Parsadi Baiga S/o Bishnu Aged About 32 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 12 - Harilal Merawi (Heera Singh) S/o Punav (Punau) Aged About 35 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 13 - Baisakhu (Baisahu) Baiga S/o Junhu Aged About 66 Years Residents Of In Front Of Sarodha Garden Gram Panchayat Kapa Block- Bodla District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Forest Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Tribal Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3 3 - Collector District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Divisional Forest Officer District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 5 - Forest Range Officer Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 6 - District Level Committee Under The Forest Right Act Through Collector Kabirdham District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no. 5 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 14.11.2025 made 4 by the petitioners according to law and procedure prescribed under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioners belong to the Baiga Scheduled Tribe community and are traditional forest dwellers who have been dependent upon forest resources for their livelihood since long. According to the petitioners, more than 25 years ago, the petitioners and their ancestors were residing in Bava Parna forest area and sustaining themselves through traditional means. It is further the case of the petitioners that subsequently, due to formation of the Bhoramdev Sanctuary, the petitioners were displaced from the said forest area without proper rehabilitation and were compelled to shift elsewhere. Thereafter, the petitioners settled in village Pandripathra situated behind the Sarodha Dam area, where they started cultivating traditional crops and continued their livelihood activities. The petitioners have stated that the said area was severely affected by flooding due to increase in the water level of the Sarodha Dam and water frequently entered into their kaccha houses, making living conditions extremely unsafe and difficult. It has been stated that basic amenities required for survival were also unavailable in the 5 said area. According to the petitioners, repeated complaints were submitted before the authorities concerned regarding flooding and lack of facilities, however, no action was taken by the authorities. The petitioners have further stated that due to continuous flooding, their houses were destroyed and under such compelling circumstances, about 11-12 years ago, they shifted and settled in front of Sarodha Garden, where they constructed small kaccha houses and have been residing peacefully since then. It is further pleaded that in the year 2020, certain forest officials threatened the petitioners to vacate the said place, however, after complaints were made before the Collector by the petitioners and other similarly situated tribal persons, no further action was taken. Again on 19.09.2025, employees of the Forest Department allegedly came to the site and threatened the petitioners to remove their constructions. Thereafter, representations dated 22.09.2025 and 14.11.2025 were submitted before the Divisional Forest Officer and other authorities highlighting the grievances of the petitioners, however, no decision has been taken till date. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat Bandha certifying that the petitioners and other affected persons were earlier residing at village Pandripathra and are presently residing in front of Sarodha Garden since last several years. According to the petitioners, thereafter on 28.04.2026, forest officials again came to the site and orally directed the petitioners to remove their houses and subsequently 6 the petitioners came to know that notices dated 21.04.2026 had been issued by the Forest Range Officer directing them to remove their houses within seven days. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are members of Scheduled Tribe community and are forest dwellers entitled to protection under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. It is contended that without determination of the rights of the petitioners under the provisions of the said Act, no coercive action for eviction can be undertaken by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were displaced earlier due to formation of Bhoramdev Sanctuary and thereafter due to flooding caused by Sarodha Dam and, therefore, the State authorities are under an obligation to consider rehabilitation of the petitioners in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no effective opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners and only a short period of seven days was granted for removal of their houses. It is further argued that the petitioners have been residing at the present place for more than a decade and sudden eviction without rehabilitation would adversely affect their right to shelter and livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of 7 the Constitution of India. However, after arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be granted liberty to file appropriate applications/claims before the competent authorities under the appropriate provisions of law raising all their grievances including their claim for rehabilitation and protection. It is further prayed that some reasonable time may be granted to the petitioners for filing such applications and till the said applications are decided, the respondent authorities may be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that if the petitioners file appropriate applications before the competent authorities under the relevant provisions of law, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Learned State counsel further submits that the authorities shall abide by any direction issued by this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and particularly the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners seeking liberty to approach the competent authorities by filing appropriate applications/claims under the appropriate provisions of law, this Court deems it appropriate to 8 dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate applications before the concerned competent authorities within a period of 30 days from today. In the event such applications are filed within the aforesaid period, the concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a further period of 90 days after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all other affected parties. Till decision of the applications so filed by the petitioners, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned notices. 7. The authorities shall also consider the aspect as to whether the petitioners can be rehabilitated at some other suitable place in accordance with law and applicable policy. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and all issues are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge