1 2026:CGHC:22204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2386 of 2026 1 - Santosh Kumar Thakur S/o Shri Kirshna Thakur Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Ropakhar, Tahsil- Mainpath, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of The Revenue Department Capital Complex Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)- Sitapur District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Mainpath District Surguja (C.G.) 5 - President Forest Right Committee Village Ropakhar, Tahsil- Mainpath, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 been filed seeking the followings 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, and set- aside impugned order dated 30/04/2026 (ANNEXURE P-1), issued by the Respondent No.04, in the respect of the petitioner 'in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the notice dated 13.04.2026 ANNEXURE P-2 issued by the Respondent No. 4 shall also be quashed in the interest of justice. 10.4 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. 10.5 Pass any other order under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner and his ancestors have been residing over the land bearing Khasra No. 875 and 853, admeasuring 0.013 hectare, situated at Village Ropakhar, Tahsil Mainpat, District Surguja, for the last nearly 80 years by constructing residential houses and courtyard thereupon. It is the case of the petitioner that the family of the petitioner has been continuously occupying and cultivating the said land and earning livelihood therefrom for decades. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted an application before the competent authorities seeking grant of lease/patta under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rules framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, the said proposal was duly recommended by the Gram Panchayat, Ropakhar Mainpat, as well as by the President of the Forest Rights Committee; however, the same is still pending consideration before the competent authorities. It has further been averred that the Gram Panchayat had also passed a resolution acknowledging possession of the petitioner and recommending grant of lease in his favour. Reliance has also been placed upon the Panchnama dated 06.02.2009 issued by members of the Gram Panchayat as well as receipts of house tax regularly deposited by the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 issued a notice dated 16.04.2026 alleging encroachment over the subject land without affording any proper opportunity of hearing. The petitioner 4 thereafter submitted a reply objecting to the proposed action and requested for cancellation of the notice. However, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and without following due procedure contemplated under law, respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment within seven days. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the petitioner and his family members are in settled possession over the disputed land since generations and are dependent upon the said land for their livelihood and shelter. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already moved an application seeking grant of lease/patta under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the same has been duly recommended by the Gram Panchayat and Forest Rights Committee, but the respondent authorities have failed to take any decision thereupon till date. Learned counsel further submits that during pendency of such application, the respondents could not have initiated coercive eviction proceedings against the petitioner. It is argued that the impugned order has been passed in a hasty manner without granting adequate opportunity of hearing and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. It is also contended that similarly situated persons had approached this Court in WPC No. 1886/2026, WPC No. 5 5628/2025 and WPC No. 618/2026, wherein interim protection was granted by this Court during pendency of the applications seeking lease/patta. It is thus submitted that the case of the present petitioner stands on identical footing and deserves similar protection. It is also argued that the impugned action infringes the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the disputed land is Government land and the petitioner is an encroacher thereupon. It is contended that the competent authority has initiated proceedings in accordance with law and after issuance of notice to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed. Learned State counsel further submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, he has an efficacious alternative remedy available under the relevant statutory provisions and therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that mere pendency of an application seeking grant of lease does not create any vested right in favour of the petitioner to continue unauthorized occupation over Government land. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already submitted an application seeking recognition/grant of lease under the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the same is stated to be pending 6 consideration before the competent authorities. 6. The documents placed on record further prima facie indicate that the petitioner and his family members are residing over the subject land since long and recommendations have also been made by the Gram Panchayat and Forest Rights Committee in favour of the petitioner. 7. This Court further finds that though the respondents have issued notice to the petitioner, the grievance of the petitioner regarding non-consideration of his pending application and reply submitted by him requires consideration by the competent authority before taking coercive steps of eviction. Moreover, similarly situated persons have already been granted interim protection by this Court in the writ petitions referred to by the petitioner. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 for a period of 90 days from today. The petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the competent authority within a period of 15 days from today highlighting pendency of his application for grant of lease/patta under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. 9. Upon such representation being filed, the competent authority shall consider and decide the pending application / representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a further 7 period of 90 days. Till such consideration, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE