EJAZ vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:19768
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2029 of 2026
1 - Ejaz S/o Late Abdul Rauf Aged About 37 Years R/o Village
Amandon,tahil And P.O. Pratappur, Police Station Pratappur District
Sarguja (C.G.).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary
Of Revenue Depatment 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 Surguja (C.G.).
4 - The Tahsildar Pratappur District - Surguja (C.G.).
5 - President Forest Right Committee, Village Amandon, Gram
Panchayat -Amandon, Tahsil -Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.).
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel
Lawyer.

2
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
29/04/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for
the entire records pertaining to the case of the present
Petitioner 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
23-01-2026 (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
petitioner or pass any other order in favour of petitioner
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.”
2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner’s father, Abdul Rauf,
expired in the year 2022 leaving behind the petitioner Ejaz and his
sister Shehnaj, and the family has been in long-standing
possession of land bearing Khasra Nos. 307 (0.50 hectare out of

3
1.44 hectare), 308 (0.10 hectare out of 0.30 hectare), and Khasra
No. 58 (0.04 hectare out of 0.71 hectare), situated at Village
Amandon, Tahsil Pratappur, District Surguja (C.G.), where their
ancestors have been residing and cultivating for more than 60–65
years after developing the land from forest area; that the
petitioner’s father had earlier instituted Civil Suit No. 42A/1996
seeking declaration and permanent injunction, wherein a status
quo order dated 08.04.1996 was granted, and his name was also
recorded in the encroachment register on 15.05.2007 that
proceedings under Section 248 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue
Code were initiated, to which a reply was submitted seeking
regularization and grant of lease and the Gram Panchayat as well
as the Forest Rights Committee passed resolutions
recommending grant of lease/forest rights in favour of the
petitioner and his family, which are still pending consideration
before the competent authorities; that similarly situated persons
have been granted interim protection by this Hon’ble Court in
WPC Nos. 5628/2025 and 6393/2025 and even the earlier petition
filed by the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to decide
his claim, but the same has not been complied with. Despite the
pendency of the petitioner’s claim for lease and forest rights,
respondent No. 4 has issued impugned notices/orders dated
23.01.2026 and 17.04.2026 directing removal of the petitioner
from the land by 05.02.2026 without following due process of law,
thereby compelling the petitioner to file the present petition.

4
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
notices/orders issued by respondent No. 4 are illegal, arbitrary,
and in gross violation of the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006, particularly Section 4(5), which clearly prohibits
eviction of forest dwellers until their claims are duly recognized
and verified; it is contended that the petitioner and his family have
been in continuous possession of the land for several decades
and have already submitted applications for grant of lease and
recognition of forest rights, which are still pending consideration,
and therefore, any attempt to dispossess them during the
pendency of such proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction; it is
further submitted that the impugned action has been taken without
affording any opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles
of natural justice, and without considering the recommendations
made by the Gram Panchayat and the Forest Rights Committee;
reliance is also placed on orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in
similar matters granting interim protection to similarly situated
persons; it is urged that the petitioner has no alternative means of
livelihood and is solely dependent upon the land in question, and
the proposed eviction, particularly during the ongoing
agricultural/monsoon period, would cause irreparable hardship; it
is further contended that the respondent authorities have failed to
comply with earlier directions of this Court to consider the
petitioner’s claim, and their action is violative of Articles 14 and 21

5
of the Constitution of India; accordingly, it is prayed that the
impugned notices/orders be set aside and appropriate directions
be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s
claim for lease/forest rights in accordance with law while
protecting his possession in the meantime.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy
available under the provisions of law for redressal of his
grievance, and therefore, the present writ petition is not
maintainable at this stage and does not warrant interference by
this Hon’ble Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and in view of the nature of the controversy, the
petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty
to approach the competent authority, i.e., SDO (Revenue),
Pratappur, by filing an appeal within a period of 10 days from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. 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 days.
7. It is directed that till the expiry of the aforesaid period, and subject
to the petitioner filing the appeal within time, no coercive steps
shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned

6
orders. It is, however, made clear that this protection is purely
interim in nature and shall not enure to the benefit of the petitioner
beyond the period specified herein. The appellate authority shall
decide the matter independently, without being influenced by any
observation made in this order.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat