Land-settlement claims must be reconsidered under applicable RBC provisions, with due consideration of long-standing possession.

The petitioners claimed long-standing possession over certain Nazul/revenue land and sought settlement or regularisation under the Chhattisgarh Government Policy dated 11 September 2019, which applied to encroachments existing before the cut-off date of 20 August 2017.

Their applications were rejected by the Nazul Officer, Mungeli, through orders dated 18 January 2022, principally on the ground that they had not produced documents, photographs or other material proving possession or construction before the cut-off date.

The petitioners contended that shops or other constructions existed on the land and that their possession had been established prior to 20 August 2017.

During the proceedings, the State submitted that the 11 September 2019 policy had subsequently been withdrawn on 23 July 2024.

The petitioners consequently sought fresh consideration of their claims under the applicable Revenue Book Circulars, notwithstanding the withdrawal of the policy.

1. Whether the orders dated 18 January 2022 rejecting the petitioners’ applications for settlement or regularisation were liable to be set aside.

2. Whether, despite the subsequent withdrawal of the Government Policy dated 11 September 2019, the petitioners were entitled to fresh consideration of their claims under the applicable Revenue Book Circulars and the conditions of the earlier policy.

3. Whether the petitioners’ asserted long-standing possession was required to be considered by the competent authority while deciding their claims.

The Court applied the provisions of the applicable Revenue Book Circulars (“RBC”) governing settlement or regularisation of land, together with the terms and conditions of the Government Policy dated 11 September 2019, subject to the petitioners satisfying the prescribed requirements.

Although the policy had been withdrawn on 23 July 2024, the Court directed that the petitioners’ claims be examined afresh in accordance with law, including the relevant RBC provisions and the earlier policy conditions.

The Court also applied the principles of fair procedure and natural justice by requiring the competent authority to provide the petitioners an opportunity of hearing before deciding their representations.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioners had actually established possession or construction before 20 August 2017.

It found, however, that the claims required fresh consideration by the competent authority, particularly because the petitioners asserted continuous possession for a considerable period and the impugned orders had rejected their applications on evidentiary grounds.

The fact that the petitioners were not landless persons did not, at this stage, justify conclusively rejecting their claims; their eligibility had to be assessed under the applicable RBC provisions and the conditions of the earlier policy.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the rejection orders and remitted the matter to the concerned Collector, while expressly leaving all merits open.

The petitioners were granted liberty to submit fresh representations, along with a copy of the judgment, before the concerned Collector within 15 days.

The Collector was directed to decide the claims afresh on their merits, in accordance with law, the applicable RBC provisions, the conditions of the withdrawn 11 September 2019 policy, and after considering the petitioners’ long-standing possession and affording them an opportunity of hearing, within 60 days of receipt of the representations.

The interim status quo protection granted on 3 March 2022 was continued for 60 days or until the competent authority passed its final decision, whichever was earlier.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ claims.