1 CGHC010283002026 2026:CGHC:31635 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3816 of 2026 1 - Jabar Ansari S/o Jashmudin Ansari, aged about 72 years R/o Village- Vijaynagar Police Station And Tehsil- Ramanujganj District- Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, New Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Collector Balrampur -Ramanujganj District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). 3 - Tehsildar Ramanujganj District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Balrampur District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushil Dubeey, Advocate. For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/07/2026 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus whereby to set aside/quash the impugned eviction/confiscation/demolition notice/order dated 07.07.2026 sent by the Respondent No. 4 under Section 80(A) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 with direction to the Respondent Authorities not to disturb peaceful possession of the Petitioner. 10.3 That, any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned demolition notice dated 07.07.2026 has been issued by respondent No. 4, the Divisional Forest Officer, Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), alleging that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of forest land and directing him to remove the alleged encroachment within five days. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in lawful possession of the land by virtue of a patta granted by the competent revenue authority and is not occupying any forest land. Learned counsel further contends that a similar notice had earlier been issued to the petitioner, to which he had submitted a detailed reply. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Hon'ble Court, and the matter 3 was ultimately closed. Despite the said proceedings, the respondent authorities have again issued the impugned notice without following the due process of law, rendering the same arbitrary and unsustainable. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the impugned notice itself indicates that a P.O.R. has been registered against the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorized occupation of forest land. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment and, therefore, he should appear before the concerned respondent authorities along with all relevant documents in support of his claim. Upon such appearance, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's case in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order after affording him due opportunity of hearing. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the record as well as the documents filed by the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner has been granted a patta by the competent revenue authorities in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 1619/5/1, as is evident from Annexure P/2. It further appears that earlier also notices had been issued to the petitioner, whereafter he had approached this Court by filing WPC No. 5946/2025, which was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to submit the relevant documents before the competent authorities and, till then, no adverse action was directed to be taken against him. From the material available on record, it appears that either the 4 authorities have not taken the proceedings to their logical conclusion or the petitioner has not extended proper cooperation in the enquiry. It further appears that P.O.R. No. 10063 has been registered alleging illegal occupation of Compartment No. 3490 admeasuring 4 hectares. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned Divisional Forest Officer is directed to consider the application and the documents relied upon by the petitioner, which shall also be produced before the competent authority, and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law by passing an appropriate order.The respondent authorities shall also take note of the fact that despite issuance of repeated notices and the earlier order passed by this Court, the proceedings have not culminated in a final order either accepting or rejecting the petitioner's claim. Accordingly, the competent authority is directed to consider the petitioner's case on its own merits and pass an appropriate order after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the competent authority shall decide the matter independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made herein. Till such decision is taken, the effect and operation of the notice dated 07.07.2026 shall remain stayed. 5. The competent authority is further directed to conclude the proceedings and pass the final order within a period of 45 days 5 from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that while deciding the matter, the authority shall specifically examine the question of possession of the land referred to in the impugned notice, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to adduce evidence in support of his contention that he is either not in possession of the said land or is in possession only of the land covered by the patta granted in his favour. 6. With this observation and direction, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju