1 CGHC010272842021 2026:CGHC:40972 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4227 of 2021 1 - Tulsiram S/o Late Shri Ram Ratiram, Aged About 85 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Jalkeshwarpara, Atal Chowk, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Shivram S/o Shri Tulsiram, Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Jalkeshwarpara, Atal Chowk, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chandradev Ram, S/o Shri Tulsiram, Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Jalkeshwarpara, Atal Chowk, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 3 - The Collector, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Baijnath Keshri S/o Ramlakhan Keshri, R/o Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from CIS System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21.09.2026 1. The petitioner have filed this petition with the following reliefs:- “ 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside/quashing the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 and entire proceedings initiated by the respondent No.4 against the petitioner for removal from the subject forest land 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste category and are in possession of government forest land bearing Khasra No. 78/1, admeasuring 1.218 hectares out of the total area of 23.738 hectares. The subject land is recorded as forest land in the revenue records. The petitioners have been in possession of the subject land for more than 50 years and, by putting in substantial labour and investing considerable amounts of money, have developed the said land for cultivation. The petitioners have also constructed a small dwelling house over a portion of the subject land and have planted trees thereon. In the year 2001, an agreement was executed in favour of Petitioner No. 1 in respect of the subject land for plantation of trees under the Indira Hareli-Saheli Scheme. Respondent No. 5, who is a journalist with the Nai Duniya newspaper, submitted a complaint before Respondent No. 4 seeking removal of the petitioners from the subject land. Pursuant to the said complaint, Respondent No. 4 registered proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1959”), bearing Case No. A-68/2016-17, and issued notices to the petitioners. It is pertinent to submit that, since the subject land is recorded as forest land in the revenue records, Respondent No. 4 has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate proceedings under Section 248 of the Act of 1959 for removal of the petitioners from the subject land. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already submitted an 4 application before the competent authority seeking allotment of the subject land in their favour in accordance with the policy of the State Government, and the said application is presently under consideration. The competent authority directed an enquiry to be conducted with regard to the petitioners’ application for grant of patta. Pursuant thereto, the concerned revenue authorities conducted an enquiry, prepared a panchnama and submitted their report before the Collector. Despite the aforesaid facts and the pendency of the petitioners’ application for grant of patta, Respondent No. 4, without jurisdiction and authority of law, has directed issuance of a warrant for dispossession of the petitioners from the subject land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 27.08.2021, as well as the entire proceedings initiated by respondent No. 4 for removal of the petitioners from the subject land, are illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to law. It is submitted that the subject land is recorded as forest land in the revenue records and, therefore, in view of Section 1(2) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1959”), respondent No. 4 has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Code, 1959 in respect of the said land. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have been in possession of the subject land for more than 50 years and have developed the same for cultivation by putting in substantial labour and investing considerable 5 amounts of money. The petitioners have also constructed a small house over a portion of the subject land and planted trees thereon. It is further submitted that, in the year 2001, an agreement was executed in favour of petitioner No. 1 in respect of the subject land for plantation of trees under the Indira Hareli- Saheli Scheme. It is further submitted that respondent No. 5, who is a journalist with the Nai Duniya newspaper, filed a complaint before respondent No. 4 seeking removal of the petitioners from the subject land. According to learned counsel, the said complaint was made with a mala fide intention. It is contended that since the subject land is recorded as forest land, respondent No. 4 has no jurisdiction or authority to initiate proceedings for removal of the petitioners therefrom. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have already submitted an application before the competent authority seeking allotment of the subject land in their favour in accordance with the policy of the State Government, and the said application is presently under consideration. The competent authority has directed an enquiry into the petitioners’ application for grant of patta. Pursuant thereto, the concerned revenue authorities conducted an enquiry, prepared a panchnama and submitted their report before the Collector. It is, therefore, submitted that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners and the impugned order dated 27.08.2021 are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. 6 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of government land recorded as “Chhote Jhad Ka Jungle”. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioners under Section 248 of the Act, 1959, and registered Revenue Case No. 201610271300017/07 for the year 2016–17 and after affording due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, they failed to produce any document establishing their title, right, interest, or authority over the government land. Consequently, vide the impugned order dated 27.08.2021, Respondent No. 4/Tahsildar passed an order for their dispossession/eviction. It is further submitted that upon receiving applications from the petitioners, the Collector, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, vide letter dated 20.04.2017, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, to conduct physical verification of the disputed land and submit a report. Pursuant to the said direction, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ramanujganj, directed the Tahsildar, Ramanujganj, to conduct a spot inspection and submit a report. Accordingly, a report was submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Ramanujganj. As per the said report, the disputed land bearing Khasra No. 78/1, admeasuring 23.738 hectares, is recorded as government land and out of the said land, an area measuring 1.218 hectares has been under the occupation of Petitioner No. 1, Tulsi Ram (late Ramrati). It has been reported 7 that Ramrati and his father Sukar Ram, had been residing on the outskirts of the city for approximately 50 years after clearing the forest and bushes and bringing the land under cultivation. After the death of Ramrati, his son- Tulsi Ram, continued to cultivate the land. It is further stated in the report that Petitioner No. 1, Tulsi Ram, has three sons and one daughter and that the family comprises approximately 18 members. The petitioner and his family members are residing in three thatched houses situated on the disputed land and are cultivating the agricultural land. It is also reported that the Tulsi Ram's son, Chandradev Ram and daughter, Sheela Kaushal, are employed as Government Teachers. The petitioner has no other land within Ramanujganj and is wholly dependent upon the disputed land for his residence and livelihood. Learned counsel for the State further submits that, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of eviction/ dispossession passed by the Tahsildar under Section 248 of Act, 1959, they have an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the competent appellate authority. It is, therefore, contended that the present writ petition, as framed and filed, is not maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. The petitioners, having failed to exhaust the said remedy, are not entitled to maintain the present petition, and the same deserves to be dismissed on this ground. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and 8 upon perusal of the documents available on record, it appears that the concerned revenue authorities have initiated proceedings under Section 248 of the Act of 1959. However, according to the petitioner, the disputed land belongs to the Forest Department and, as such, he is in possession of forest land over which the respondent authorities have no jurisdiction or authority. There are specific provisions under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short “the Act of 1927”) to take action against the removal of the encroachment and the exclusive jurisdiction is vested with the forest authorities to take the initiative and action for the removal of the encroachment but it is none of the business of the revenue authorities to poke their nose in the affairs of the forest authorities. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar and other revenue authorities for removal of the alleged encroachment are without jurisdiction and amount to an abuse of the process of law. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners regarding the nature and ownership of the disputed land requires consideration by the concerned forest as well as revenue authorities. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to file an appropriate application/reply before the concerned Forest Authorities as well as the Tahsildar within a period of 30 days from today, raising all their grievances and contentions with regard to the disputed land. Upon receipt of such application/reply, the concerned forest authorities and the revenue Authorities shall examine the matter in 9 accordance with law and determine whether the disputed land forms part of the forest land belonging to the Forest Department. If, upon such consideration, the land is found to be forest land, the concerned forest authorities shall also consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and pass an appropriate order, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is further noticed that by an interim order dated 25.10.2021, this Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the disputed property, particularly in respect of the possession of the petitioners. The concerned forest authorities and the revenue authorities are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the application/reply filed by the petitioners. Till the expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the disputed property, as directed by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2021. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL