AKLIM ANSARI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010428672026 2026:CGHC:46694
NAFR

Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5557 of 2026
1 - Aklim Ansari S/o Phakira Aged About 70 Years R/o Village- Silphili,
Tahsil- Pratappur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Department Of Revenue,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Secretary, Department Of Forest Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja
(C.G.)
4 - The Collector - Surajpur / Chairman Of The District Level Van
Adhikar Committee - Surajpur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)
5 - Assistant Commissioner / Secretary District Level Van Adhikar
Samiti - Surajpur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)
6 - The Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) / Chairman Of Divisional

2
Level Van Adhikar Samiti Pratappur Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)
7 - Tahsildar Pratappur, Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
WPC No. 5562 of 2026
1 - Samim Ansari S/o Mansur Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Silphili,
Tahsil Pratappur Distt Surajpur C. G.
--- Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Revenue,
Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Distt Raipur C. G.
2 - The Secretary Department Of Forest Mahanadi Bhawan New
Raipur Distt Raipur C. G.
3 - The Commissioner Surguja Division, Ambikapur Distt Surguja C. G.
4 - The Collector Surajpur / Chairman Of The District Level Van Adhikar
Committee Surajpur, Distt Surajpur C. G.
5 - Assistant Commissioner / Secretary District Level Van Adhikar
Samiti Surajpur, Distt Surajpur C. G.
6 - The Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Chairman Of Divisional Level
Van Adhikar Samiti Pratappur Distt Surguja C. G.
7 - Tahsildar Pratappur, Distt Surajpur C. G.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3
For Petitioners :- Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Priyank Rathi, G.A.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
04.11.2026
1. Since both the petitions involve identical and similar issues and
arise out of the same set of facts, they are being decided by this
common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 5557 of 2026 is taken
up as the lead case, and the facts and reliefs are being referred
to from the said petition.
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 08.07.2026 passed by respondent No.4, whereby the
petitioner's application for grant of Van Adhikar Patta in respect of
the subject land has been rejected. The petitioner has also
assailed the consequential proceedings initiated by respondent
No.7, Tahsildar, Pratappur, for eviction from the subject land and
demolition of the residential house constructed thereon.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to have been
in possession of the subject land for the last about 60 years and
has constructed a residential house thereon, where the petitioner
is residing with his family. It is contended that the petitioner has
no other land or residential house. Accordingly, an application

4
seeking grant of Van Adhikar Patta was submitted before the
Collector. However, the said application was rejected vide order
dated 08.07.2026 (Annexure P/1), without conducting any enquiry
regarding the petitioner's possession and without affording him an
opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the authorities
failed to consider the Panchnama prepared by the concerned
Patwari and the Gram Panchayat, recording the petitioner's
possession over the subject land. Being aggrieved by the order
dated 08.07.2026, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur. However, the said
appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2026, on the
ground that no provision for appeal against rejection of an
application for grant of Van Adhikar Patta is available. It is further
contended that pursuant to the order dated 08.07.2026,
respondent No.7, Tahsildar, Pratappur, initiated proceedings for
eviction of the petitioner and issued a notice dated 25.09.2026,
directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land and residential
house. The petitioner apprehends that, if evicted and his
residential house is demolished, he would suffer irreparable loss
and injury. Hence, the present petition.
5. Following reliefs have been prayed:-
“10.1 In view of the aforesaid circumstances the
petitioner respectfully prays for the following
reliefs:10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be

5
pleased to set aside of impugned order dated 8.7.2026
ANNEXURE P/1 issued by the respondent no.4.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to
direct the respondent no. 4 to re-consider the case of
the petitioner for grant of Van Adhikar Patta of the
subject land filed by the petitioner as per his
entitlement.
10.3 That, any other relief or reliefs may also be
granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order dated 08.07.2026 passed by respondent No.4 is illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to the material available on record. It is
contended that the petitioner has been in possession of the
subject land for a long period and has constructed a residential
house thereon, where he is residing with his family. The petitioner
is a landless person and claims to be entitled to grant of Van
Adhikar Patta; however, the Collector rejected his application
without properly examining his entitlement. Learned counsel
further submits that the impugned order has been passed without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without
conducting an enquiry into his possession and eligibility for grant
of patta. It is also contended that the Panchnama prepared by the
concerned Patwari and the Gram Panchayat, recording the
petitioner's possession over the subject land, has not been

6
considered by the competent authority. Learned counsel lastly
submits that pursuant to rejection of the petitioner's application,
respondent No.7, Tahsildar, Pratappur, has initiated eviction
proceedings and issued a notice dated 25.09.2026, directing the
petitioner to vacate the subject land and residential house. It is
contended that the petitioner has been residing there with his
family for several years and that his dispossession from the
subject land and demolition of his residential house would cause
irreparable loss and injury. Accordingly, learned counsel prays
that the impugned orders be set aside and appropriate relief be
granted to the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners are
encroachers over the forest land and have failed to establish any
legal or statutory right to claim grant of Van Adhikar Patta. It is
contended that mere long-standing possession over the subject
land or construction of a residential house thereon does not, by
itself, confer any right to obtain such patta. Learned State counsel
further submits that the petitioners have not established their
eligibility in accordance with the provisions of the Scheduled
Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006. It is further submitted that an eviction
notice has been issued to the petitioners in accordance with law
and that the Act of 2006 provides a complete procedure for
recognition and vesting of forest rights, which the petitioners are
required to pursue before the competent authorities constituted

7
under the said Act. Learned State counsel submits that the
petitioners ought to avail the remedy available under the statutory
framework instead of directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of this
Court. Upon perusal of the orders passed by the Collector as well
as the Commissioner, it appears that the petitioners have not
availed the remedy available to them under the applicable law.
Accordingly, learned State counsel submits that no illegality or
jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is made out and prays for dismissal of the
writ petition.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, this Court finds that the
petitioners have primarily based their claim upon their alleged
long-standing possession over the subject land and the
construction of residential houses thereon. However, mere long-
standing possession over Government forest land, even if
accompanied by construction of a residential house, does not, by
itself, confer any ownership or leasehold right upon the
occupants. No person can claim an indefeasible right to occupy
Government forest land merely on the ground of prolonged
possession. At the same time, the claim of the petitioners for
recognition of forest rights, if any, is required to be examined in
accordance with the statutory mechanism provided under the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers

8
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act, 2006') and the Rules framed thereunder.
9. The Act, 2006, provides a specific procedure for recognition and
vesting of forest rights in eligible forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes
and other traditional forest dwellers. Under the statutory scheme,
the Gram Sabha is the authority competent to initiate the process
of determining the nature and extent of individual or community
forest rights. The claims are thereafter required to be examined
by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level
Committee in accordance with the procedure prescribed under
the Act and the Rules. Therefore, a claim for grant of Van Adhikar
Patta cannot be considered dehors the aforesaid statutory
mechanism.
10. It is also pertinent to observe that the Panchnama prepared
by the concerned Patwari or the Gram Panchayat, even if it
records the possession of the petitioners over the subject land,
cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of their
entitlement to forest rights. Such documents may, however, be
placed before the competent authorities for consideration along
with other relevant documents and evidence in support of their
claims. The petitioners would be required to establish their
eligibility and satisfy the conditions prescribed under the Act,
2006. Their claim cannot be accepted merely on the basis of their
alleged possession or the fact that they are landless persons.

9
11. This Court is also conscious of the submission made by
learned State counsel that the subject land forms part of
Government forest land and that the petitioners are unauthorised
occupants thereof. It is settled that no person can be permitted to
encroach upon forest land or raise any construction thereon
contrary to law. However, the State, being a welfare State, is
equally required to ensure that any claim falling within the ambit
of the Act, 2006, is considered by the competent authorities by
following the procedure prescribed therein. The protection
available under the said Act cannot be denied merely on the basis
of an allegation of encroachment, without examining the claim in
accordance with the statutory provisions.
12. It further appears from the material placed on record that
the petitioners have not availed the complete statutory procedure
available under the Act, 2006, before the authorities concerned.
The mere rejection of their applications by the Collector and
dismissal of their appeals by the Commissioner would not
dispense with the requirement of approaching the authorities
specifically empowered under the Act, 2006, for determination of
forest rights. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the
petitioners ought to first pursue their claims before the competent
authorities in the manner prescribed under the Act, 2006 and the
Rules framed thereunder.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad

10
Municipal Corporation Vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Ors
[(1997) 11 SCC 121], has observed the constitutional duty of the
State in cases involving encroachment. The relevant portion of
the afore-cited judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“13.. ..It would, therefore, be clear that though no
person has a right to encroach and erect structures or
otherwise on footpath, pavement or public streets or
any other place reserved or earmarked for a public
purpose, the State has the Constitutional duty to
provide adequate facilities and opportunities by
distributing its wealth and resources for settlement of
life and erection of shelter over their heads to make
the right to life meaningful, effective and fruitful…"
14. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of In Re:
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Ors.
(MANU/SC/0762/2025, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1227) , while
dealing with issue of right to shelter referred the case of Chameli
Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. [(1996) 2 SCC 549] , in
which it has been held as under:-
" 8 ....Shelter for a human being, therefore, is not a
mere protection of his life and limb. It is home where
he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally,
intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore,
includes adequate living space, safe and decent
structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient
light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and
other civic amenities like roads etc…”

11
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims or their actual
entitlement to grant of Van Adhikar Patta, the petitioners are
directed to approach the competent authorities under the Act,
2006, in the manner prescribed under the Rules, 2007, within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
In the event such claims are submitted, the competent authorities
shall consider and process the same in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder,
after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and
considering the relevant documents and evidence produced by
them. The authorities shall pass appropriate orders by a
reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.
16. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion regarding the eligibility of the petitioners for grant of Van
Adhikar Patta, and the competent authorities shall independently
examine their claims without being influenced by any observation
made herein. The petitioners shall also cooperate with the
proceedings and furnish all relevant documents and particulars as
may be required by the competent authorities.
17. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are stated to
be residing with their families on the subject land and that eviction
proceedings have already been initiated, it is directed that no
coercive steps for their eviction or demolition of their residential

12
houses shall be taken until their claims are considered and
decided by the competent authorities in accordance with law. This
protection shall not be construed as conferring any right, title or
interest upon the petitioners over the subject land and shall
remain subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the
competent authorities.
18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ
petitions stand disposed of .
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha