Chattisgarh High Court
Vishnu Pratap Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2026
1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:14818
YOGESH
YOGESH
TIWARI
TIWARI
Date:
2026.04.01
NAFR
18:30:30
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3075 of 2021
Vishnu Pratap Singh S/o Shrichand Singh Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Kamarji Post Kamarji Tahsil Bharatpur District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Koriya Chhattisgarh.
2 - Secretary Gram Panchayat Kamarji, Tehsil Bharatpur, District Koriya
Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Saba Khan, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate For State : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.03.2026
1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be call the entire records of this case from the respondents.2
10.2 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and directed to respondents for not disposed to petitioner from the subject land.
10.3 Any other relief(s) as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed to fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the forefathers of the petitioner have been in continuous possession of the subject forest land bearing Room No.170, admeasuring 3.00 hectares, since 10.02.1968, and have been residing thereon and carrying out agricultural activities. It is further submitted that the lease in respect of the said land was duly granted by the Government, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure P/1. It is contended that despite the petitioner's long-standing possession and lawful entitlement, the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Kamarji, vide action dated 15.07.2021, sought to allot the petitioner's land for the Gouthan project, without following due process of law. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Collector on 19.07.2021 seeking protection of his land, which has been filed as Annexure P/2, however, no effective action has been taken thereon.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste family and is entitled to protection under the relevant provisions of law. It is also submitted that adjoining forest land bearing Room No.171, admeasuring 4.00 hectares, has been 3 allotted by the Forest Department, and the Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Kamarji has also drawn a Panchnama in favour of the petitioner, evidencing his possession, which is filed as Annexure P/3. Lastly, it is submitted that under Section 246 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the rights of persons holding house sites in abadi areas are protected, particularly in respect of schemes sponsored by the Government of India for providing house sites to landless persons in rural areas. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, and liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the instant writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merits, and does not disclose any enforceable legal right so as to warrant interference under writ jurisdiction, and is therefore liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the petition is founded merely on an apprehension of dispossession, whereas in fact the petitioner is an encroacher over Government forest land bearing Room/Forest Comport No.170 admeasuring 3.00 hectares situated at Village Kamarji, Tahsil Bharatpur, District Koriya. It is further submitted that no document has been placed on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that the said land has been allotted to him or his forefathers. The document filed as Annexure P/1 is merely a money receipt and does not 4 confer any leasehold rights. On the contrary, the records would reveal that the subject land has never been allotted to any individual. The claim of the petitioner for grant of forest rights has already been considered by the competent authority, i.e., the Van Gram Samiti in its meeting dated 13.03.2021, wherein the petitioner was found ineligible, and the said proceedings have been placed on record as Annexure R/1.
5. Learned State counsel further submits that the Gram Sabha of Gram Panchayat Kamarji, in its meeting dated 17.10.2020, has duly resolved to earmark the said land for establishment of Gouthan, and pursuant thereto, administrative sanction has also been granted by the District Panchayat Koriya on 07.11.2020 for construction of Samudayik Maveshi Ashray Sthal (Gouthan), as reflected from Annexures R/2 and R/3. Thus, the land in question is already reserved for a public purpose. It is also contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Hon'ble Court, inasmuch as he is already a beneficiary of government land, having been granted leases over Khasra No.301 admeasuring 0.6000 hectare and Khasra No.151/2 admeasuring 1.9500 hectares in the same village, which fact is evident from the revenue records (Annexure R/4). On this ground alone, the petition deserves dismissal.
6. Learned State counsel further submits that under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers 5 (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (in short "Act of 2006"), a complete statutory mechanism has been provided for adjudication of claims relating to forest rights. In the present case, the petitioner's claim has already been rejected by the competent committee, and if aggrieved, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and thereafter the District Level Committee under the prescribed Rules. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner neither falls within the category of "forest dwelling scheduled tribes" nor qualifies as an "other traditional forest dweller" as defined under the Act of 2006, as no material has been placed to establish continuous residence and dependence on forest land for the requisite period of three generations, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any forest rights. As such, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the respondents, and the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record with due consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the respective parties.
8. Upon such consideration, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any legally enforceable right over the subject land in question so as to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The foundation of the petitioner's claim rests upon alleged long possession and a document (Annexure P/1), which, 6 upon scrutiny, does not confer any semblance of leasehold or ownership rights. On the contrary, the record reflects that the land in question forms part of Government forest land and has never been formally allotted to the petitioner or his predecessors in accordance with law.
9. It is also evident that the competent authorities, in accordance with the statutory scheme under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, have already considered the petitioner's claim and found him ineligible for grant of forest rights. The petitioner has not demonstrated that he has successfully availed or exhausted the remedies available under the Act of 2006. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is available.
10. Further, the material placed on record indicates that the subject land has already been earmarked for a public purpose, namely establishment of Gouthan, pursuant to a resolution of the Gram Sabha and administrative sanction granted by the competent authority. No illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety in the decision-making process of the respondents has been demonstrated warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, it has also come on record that the petitioner is already a beneficiary of allotment of other parcels of Government land, which fact has not been candidly disclosed in the writ petition. Such suppression 7 of material facts disentitles the petitioner from any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits and does not deserve to be entertained. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/--
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh