(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
"10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be call
the entire records of this case from the
respondents.
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
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
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
(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,
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
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
