Eviction of Forest Dwellers Prohibited Until Disposal of Claims Under the Forest Rights Act, 2006

The petitioner’s family claims to have been in possession of forest land in Village Amandon for over 60–65 years, cultivating it since the time of their ancestors.

Following the death of the petitioner’s father in 2022, the petitioner sought regularization and the grant of forest rights/patta.

Although the Gram Panchayat and Forest Right Committee recommended the grant of lease/rights, the Respondent No. 4 (Tahsildar, Pratappur) issued notices dated 23.01.2026 and 17.04.2026 directing the removal of the petitioner from the land.

The petitioner challenged these eviction orders in the High Court, arguing that the claims for forest rights were still pending consideration and that previous court directions to decide his claim had not been complied with.

1. Whether the impugned eviction notices issued by the Tahsildar were legal given the pendency of the petitioner’s claims under the Forest Rights Act.

2. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of available alternative statutory remedies.

Section 4(5) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which prohibits the eviction of forest dwellers until the recognition and verification procedure of their claims is complete.

The principle of "efficacious alternative remedy" available under the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, specifically the right to appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (Revenue).

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution concerning the right to natural justice and livelihood.

The Court evaluated the petitioner's claim of long-term possession and the statutory protection against eviction during the pendency of forest rights recognition.

While the petitioner urged that the Tahsildar's action was arbitrary and violated natural justice, the State argued that the petitioner had a statutory remedy under the Land Revenue Code.

To balance the administrative proceedings with the petitioner’s rights, the Court determined that the most appropriate course was to permit the petitioner to exhaust the alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the SDO, while providing short-term interim protection to ensure the appeal is not rendered infructuous by immediate eviction.

The Court held that if such an appeal is filed, the competent authority must decide it on its merits within 15 days and directed that no coercive steps (eviction) be taken against the petitioner until the expiry of this 10-day period (and the duration of the appeal process if filed timely).