1 2026:CGHC:18532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1822 of 2026 1 - Banarasi S/o Late Somaru Aged About 80 Years R/o Village Bandhiyachuwan, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Collector District Sarguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Surguja Forest Division, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) Sub Division Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) Sub Division Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Forest Range Officer Forest Range, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Bhakta, Advocate For State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 23/04/2026 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. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside / quash the impugned eviction / dispossession notice dated 17.03.2026 (ANN P-1) issued by the Division forest officer, surguja, forest division Ambikapur District Sarguja (Resp No.04), and the Petitioner be allowed to reside at the suit property/ house (Reserved Forest 2582, area about 0.411 hectare), in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authority concerned to decide the representation / application, submitted by the Petitioner for grant of Vanbhoomi Adhikar Patta since 05.08.2022 (Ann P- 2), within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other relief, 3 which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper be also awarded.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the dispossession/eviction notice dated 17.03.2026 issued by the District Forest Officer, whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the alleged encroachment from the forest land. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste category and is a landless person, whose family has been residing over the disputed land for the last 40–50 years by constructing a small residential house (Makan Badi). The petitioner contends that there is no existing forest over the land in question for a long time and that his possession has been peaceful and uninterrupted for several decades. It is further stated that despite such long possession and pendency of application for grant of forest rights (Vanbhoomi Adhikar Patta), the impugned eviction notice has been issued without proper enquiry or affording opportunity of hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor, landless individual belonging to a Scheduled Caste and has no alternative place of residence. It is contended that the petitioner and his family have been residing on the land in question for more than four decades, and such long-standing possession ought to have been considered by the authorities 4 before initiating eviction proceedings. It is further submitted that the impugned notice has been issued in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without conducting proper verification and without considering the petitioner’s pending claim for grant of forest rights under the relevant law. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has a legitimate expectation for grant of patta and protection of his possession, and therefore, coercive action of eviction deserves to be interfered with by this Court. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is an encroacher over reserved forest land and the impugned notice has been issued strictly in accordance with law. It is contended that similar matters have already been adjudicated by this Court wherein the petitioners were directed to avail the remedy available under the statutory framework, particularly under the provisions governing forest rights. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to approach the competent authorities under the relevant Act and Rules, and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the record, it is apparent that the issue involved in the present petition is identical to the batch of writ petitions earlier decided by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026 bearing W.P.C. No. 1636 of 2026 and other connected matters concerning eviction of encroachers from forest land and their claim for 5 settlement under the statutory provisions. The petitioner herein also claims long-standing possession over the forest land and asserts entitlement for grant of forest rights. 7. It is well settled that no person has a legal right to encroach upon forest land. However, at the same time, statutory provisions under the relevant enactments provide a complete mechanism for consideration of claims of persons who are in occupation of forest land for a long period. Such claims are required to be adjudicated by the competent authorities in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy available under the applicable provisions for recognition of forest rights. The earlier common order passed by this Court has already laid down the course of action, directing similarly situated persons to approach the competent authorities for redressal of their grievance. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall approach the competent authority, as provided under the relevant statutory framework, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt 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. It is further directed that till the petitioner’s claim is adjudicated by the 6 competent authority, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner, subject to his cooperation in the proceedings. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No orders as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge