1 2026:CGHC:18856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1858 of 2026 1 - Satish S/o Sohan, Aged About 30 Years R/o Mohalla Dabripani, Village Bandhiyachuwan, Tahsil Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, New Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, District Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) 4 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja Forest Division Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Forest), Sub Division-Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) Sub Division-Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) 7 - The Forest Range Officer, Forest Range-Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case from the authorities concerned for its kind perusal. Divisional 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside / quash the impugned eviction / dispossession notice dated 17.03.2026 (AN P-1) issued by the Division forest officer, forest division Ambikapur District Sarguja (Resp No.04), and the Petitioner be allowed to reside at the suit property / house (Reserved Forest compartment No. 2582, area about 0.008 hectare). 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to, as an alternative measure, the Respondent authority (State) be directed to provide appropriate government land for residence of petitioner's family in case of dispossession / eviction, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other relief, which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded. 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the petition, are that the petitioner belongs to District Sarguja, which is predominantly inhabited by members of aboriginal/tribal communities. The 3 petitioner asserts that his family has been in long-standing, peaceful possession of the disputed land for the past 40–50 years, where they have constructed a small residential house (Makan Badi) and have been residing continuously. It is further the case of the petitioner that there are no forest trees standing on the said land for a considerable period of time, and the land has been used for residential purposes by the petitioner’s family. The petitioner also submits that he is a landless person (आवासहीन) and has no alternative place of residence. Despite such long and settled possession, the respondent authorities have initiated dispossession and demolition proceedings vide notice dated 17.03.2026, which has given rise to the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice dated 17.03.2026, initiating dispossession and demolition proceedings, is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and material available on record. It is contended that the petitioner and his family have been in peaceful possession of the land for more than four to five decades, and such long-standing possession has not been duly considered by the authorities before issuing the impugned notice. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a landless person and has constructed a modest dwelling on the land, which is the only shelter available to him and his family. The action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner without providing any opportunity of hearing and without conducting proper enquiry or verification is in violation of the 4 principles of natural justice, as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also submits that the action of the Forest Department is arbitrary and has been initiated in a mechanical manner without appreciating the ground realities and the petitioner’s long, peaceful occupation. It is contended that the petitioner has a legitimate expectation of being granted rights over the land, including grant of Vanbhoomi Adhikar Patta, in accordance with applicable laws and policies. It is further argued that in a similar matter, this Court has protected the possession of similarly situated persons, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to similar protection. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the impugned notice be set aside and appropriate protection be granted to the petitioner against dispossession. 4. Learned State counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the impugned action has been initiated strictly in accordance with law and after due consideration of the status of the land in question. It is contended that the petitioner has no legal right, title or interest over the disputed land so as to claim protection against the proceedings initiated by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the issue raised in the present petition is no longer res integra, as in a batch of writ petitions, including Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2026 and other connected matters, this Court has already considered and decided similar issues pertaining to occupation of forest land and action taken by the authorities. The State counsel submits 5 that the present case stands on identical footing, and therefore, no separate adjudication is required. It is thus prayed that the present petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, by granting similar directions, if deemed appropriate. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, it is evident that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in the batch of writ petitions led by Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2026 and other connected matters, wherein identical issues relating to eviction from reserved forest land pursuant to notice dated 17.03.2026 were considered in detail. 6. In the said batch of petitions, this Court has already held that though the petitioners therein (similarly situated persons) cannot claim any vested right to continue on encroached forest land, nevertheless, being landless persons residing for a considerable period, their grievances are required to be examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder. This Court has further directed such petitioners to approach the competent authorities as per the statutory mechanism, with a corresponding direction to the authorities to consider their claims in accordance with law and, in the meantime, not to take coercive steps. 6 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, which are substantially similar to those dealt with in the aforesaid batch of petitions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition also deserves to be disposed of in the same terms. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules, 2007 or any other applicable law, for redressal of his grievance with regard to the disputed land, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event such an application is filed, the concerned authorities shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in a pragmatic and reasoned manner. 9. Till such proceedings are concluded, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice dated 17.03.2026. The petitioner shall cooperate in the proceedings before the competent authority and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge