1 2026:CGHC:10928-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 204 of 2026 1. Mahesh Ram Lakra S/o Amrit Ram Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 2. Siyaram Beck S/o Balak Ram Beck Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 3. Indrachand S/o Parsunath Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 4. Pramila W/o Sajivan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 5. Heeramoti W/o Amarnath Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 6. Shanti W/o Shivajan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 7. Babita W/o Shiv Shankar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 8. Kaval Sai S/o Badkharam Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.03.03 14:34:31 +0530 2 9. Nikeshwari S/o Mahadev Singh Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 10. Maniyaro S/o Jagjeevan Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 11. Dhan Singh S/o Manjharam Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 12. Gulender S/o Kaman Sai Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 13. Tirendra Singh S/o Shriram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 14. Shiv Ratni W/o Sukhsai Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 15. Asno Bai W/o Jodharam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 16. Basanti S/o Pancham Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 17. Ram Kripal Das S/o Sahadan Das Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 18. Ram Jatan S/o Dilbodh Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 19. Dinesh S/o Gendo Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh 3 20. Sabita W/o Dinesh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Chiranga, Block - Batauli, Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja (Ambikapur) Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Secretary Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Welfare, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5. Director Directorate Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. Collector, Surguja District Surguja Chhattisgarh 7. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Block - Batauli, Sitapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 8. General Manager Zila Vyapar Avam Udhyog Kendra, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 9. Tahsildar Batauli, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 10. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Janpad Panchayat Batauli, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 11. Secretary Gram Panchayat Chiranga, Janpad Panchayat Batauli, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh 12. M/s Maa Kudargadi Alumina Refinery Private Limited Through Its Managing Director, Having Its Registered Office At Shop No. 503,504,505 Ozone Plaza, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 492004 13. Anmol Vivek Toppo S.D.O. Sitapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 4 For Appellants : Ms. Rajni Soren, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 .03.2026 1. Heard Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 336 of 2023 (Mahesh Ram Lakra & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners herein has been disposed off by the learned Single Judge. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 855 of 2025 (Sarla Devi & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and batch vide order dated 11.12.2025, observing as follows : “22. The core issue in the present appeal revolves around the entitlement of the 5 appellants/writ petitioners to claim regularization, legal title, or protection over Government land recorded as Pahadi Chattan, specifically Khasra Nos. 57/1, 70/1, and 70/77 in Village Chiranga, Tehsil Batauli, District Surguja, notwithstanding the lawful allotment of the same land to respondent No. 12 for establishment of an industrial project. 23. The appellants/writ petitioners assert long- standing occupation of the land, traditional use for nistar purposes including grazing, collection of forest produce, and agricultural cultivation, as well as rights under statutory frameworks such as the PESA and the FRA. 24. The learned Single Judge, after careful appreciation of the pleadings, documents, revenue records, and statutory provisions, has correctly held that while the appellants/writ petitioners may have occupied and used the land for livelihood purposes over a long period, such occupation is technically unauthorized and irregular, and no legal title or patta exists in their favour. 25. The findings of the learned Single Judge are consistent with settled legal principles, including the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder (supra) and Murlidhar Dayandeo Keskar (supra), which underscore that mere long-standing unauthorized occupation does not create a vested right or entitlement to regularization, especially when the land is allotted for a notified public purpose project. 6 26. The appellants/writ petitioners’ allegations regarding a purportedly forged Gram Sabha resolution dated 08.08.2020, non-compliance with procedural safeguards, or alleged failure to consider FRA claims, have been examined and addressed. 27. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellants/writ petitioners, despite occupation, cannot override statutory rules governing allotment of Government land. 28. The Single Judge’s order further ensures that the socio-economic vulnerability of the appellants/writ petitioners is recognized. Directions have been given to the State to sympathetically consider claims for rehabilitation or alternative land allotment under existing schemes and policies, keeping in mind their traditional dependence on the land, livelihood, and socio-economic condition. 29. On the other hand, the submissions on behalf of the State, through Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, demonstrate that all necessary steps for compliance with the directions of this Court in WPC No.336/2023 and other connected matters have been initiated and are being implemented in accordance with law. The appellants/writ petitioners’ possession was not disturbed during the specified period, and no coercive action was taken. The State authorities are in the process of considering claims for rehabilitation or alternate allotment in accordance with applicable policies and statutory provisions. 7 30. It is evident from the record that the impugned order strikes a balance between protecting the State’s lawful interest in allotting the land for a public purpose project and addressing the socio-economic concerns of the appellants/writ petitioners. 31. The impugned order recognizes that the land cannot be restored or regularized but ensures that each petitioner’s socio-economic situation is considered carefully for alternative allotment or rehabilitation. In doing so, the learned Single Judge has faithfully applied constitutional principles, statutory protections under PESA and FRA, and relevant judicial precedents. 32. In view of the above, these writ appeals being WA No.855/2025, WA No.889/2025 and WA No.896/2025 filed by the appellants/writ petitioners is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge regarding consideration of alternative allotment or rehabilitation shall continue to be implemented by the State authorities expeditiously and in accordance with law, ensuring due regard to the socio-economic status, livelihood, and traditional rights of the appellants/writ petitioners. 33. There shall be no order as to costs.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 855 of 2025 & batch, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned 8 counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is evident that the facts and the issues involved in the present appeal are identical to those in WA No. 855 of 2025 & batch. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt the view taken in WA No. 855 of 2025 & batch and does not find any reason to take a different view in the present matter. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in WA No. 855 of 2025 & batch. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan