1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2094 of 2026 1 - Firoj S/o Mohd Haleem Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Amandon, Tahsil And P.O. Pratappur, Police Station Pratappur District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Sahnaj Rangsaj W/o Firoz Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Amandon, Tahsil And P.O. Pratappur, Police Station Pratappur District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of The Revenue Department Capital Complex Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Ambikapur District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)- Pratappur District Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - The Tahsildar Pratappur District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - President Forest Right Committee Village Amandon, Gram Panchayat-Amandon, Tahsil- Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For State :- Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 29.04.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the impugned notices/orders dated 17.04.2026 and 23.02.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No.4, whereby eviction proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioners in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 308, Rakba 0.04 hectare, situated at Patwari Halka No. 21, RNM Pratappur, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.). 2. Briefly stated, the case of the Petitioners is that they and their predecessors have been in possession of the subject land for the last several decades (approximately 60–65 years) and have been using the same for residential and livelihood purposes. It is contended that an application for recognition of forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 has already been submitted before the competent authority and the same is still pending consideration. It is further contended that without deciding the said application and without affording an opportunity of hearing, Respondent No.4 has issued the impugned eviction 3 notices, which are illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, particularly Section 4(5) of the Act of 2006. 3. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the present Petitioners from the Respondent authorities concerned for kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions, thereby setting-aside impugned order Dt. 17.04.2026 and 23.02.2026 (ANN P-1), issued by the Respondent No.04, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant the lease to the Petitioners or pass any other order in favour of Petitioners as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost. 10.4 Pass any other order under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. ” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned orders have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the 4 Petitioners. It is further submitted that in view of Section 4(5) of the Act of 2006, the Petitioners cannot be evicted until their claim for forest rights is finally adjudicated. It is also argued that the Petitioners have no alternative remedy and are facing imminent threat of dispossession despite long-standing possession and pending proceedings before the competent authority. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the impugned action has been taken in accordance with law and that the Petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy available under the relevant revenue laws by way of appeal before the competent authority. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the nature of the controversy, this Court is of the opinion that the matter can be appropriately addressed by relegating the Petitioners to avail the alternative statutory remedy available to them. Accordingly, the Petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach the competent authority, i.e., the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) by filing an appeal within a period of 10 (ten) days from today. 7. In the event such an appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, within a further period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of filing of the appeal. 5 8. It is further directed that till the expiry of the aforesaid period, and subject to the Petitioners filing the appeal within the stipulated time, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders dated 17.04.2026 and 23.02.2026. However, it is made clear that this protection is purely interim in nature and shall not enure to the benefit of the Petitioners beyond the period specified herein. 9. The appellate authority shall decide the matter independently, without being influenced by any observations made in this order. 10. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha