1 2026:CGHC:20427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2159 of 2026 Rameshwar S/o. Phoolchand Aged About 46 Years R/o. Village Vikrampur, Tehsil Sonhat, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector District- Koriya (C.G.) 3 - The Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya (C.G.) 4 - The Forest Range Officer Forest Range- Deogarh, District- Koriya (C.G.) 5 - The Forest Range Officer Sonhat Forest Range, Baikunthpur Division, District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 01.05.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Notice dated 10.04.2026 (served on 27.04.2026) issued by Respondent No. 3, whereby a process for his forceful YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.05.01 17:57:16 +0530 2 eviction from the premises has been initiated in an arbitrary and illegal manner, without following the due procedure of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the said action, undertaken without affording any opportunity of hearing or passing a reasoned order, is wholly capricious and infringes the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly his right to life and livelihood, thereby warranting interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and direct the Respondents to produce entire records pertaining to the present case for its kind perusal. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondents thereby quash the impugned notice dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P/1). (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to Respondents by directing them not to proceed with the dispossession of petitioner, till the pendency of this writ petition before the Hon'ble Court. (iv) That, any other order/relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present 3 case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity. (v) That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor landless agriculturist and permanent resident of Village Vikrampur, District Koriya, who has been in peaceful and continuous possession of the subject land for more than four decades, where he has constructed his residential house and is residing along with his family members. It is contended that the petitioner has been regularly paying electricity charges and other dues, and his possession stands recognized by the State itself, as financial assistance was granted to him under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana for construction of the house and even compensation was paid when the house was damaged due to an elephant attack, thereby clearly establishing permissive possession. 3. It is further submitted that the impugned notice dated 10.04.2026, served on 27.04.2026, directing the petitioner to vacate the premises within seven days, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, as no prior opportunity of hearing has been afforded nor any reasoned order has been passed. Learned counsel contends that the threatened action of demolition and forcible eviction, without following due process of law, is in gross violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of 4 India, particularly the petitioner’s right to life, livelihood and shelter. 4. It is also argued that the action of the respondents is discriminatory and suffers from malafides, inasmuch as despite having extended benefits under a welfare housing scheme and recognizing the petitioner’s occupation, the respondents are now seeking to evict him in a high-handed manner without any rehabilitation or alternative arrangement. Such action, it is submitted, is not “procedure established by law” and therefore cannot be sustained. 5. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this Court be quashed the impugned notice and restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner, except in accordance with law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is an unauthorized occupant over forest/government land and has no legal right, title or interest over the same. It is contended that the impugned notice has been issued strictly in accordance with law for removal of encroachment, and due procedure has been followed. The grant of benefits under the PMAY Scheme or payment of compensation does not confer any ownership or legal right upon the petitioner over the land in question. It is thus submitted that no interference is warranted and the writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed. 5 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy involved requires factual adjudication, particularly with regard to the nature of the land, the status of the petitioner’s possession and the applicability of the relevant forest and revenue laws, which cannot be conclusively determined in the present writ jurisdiction. However, at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that the petitioner is stated to be in long-standing possession of the subject premises and claims to be residing therein along with his family, and any precipitative action at this stage may result in irreparable hardship. 9. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the competent Forest Authorities by filing a detailed representation/application raising all his grievances, along with relevant documents, within a period of 15 days from today. In the event such an application is filed, the concerned authorities shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6 10. Till the aforesaid application is decided by the competent authority, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the authorities shall be free to take an independent decision in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/-- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh