### Long-standing unauthorized occupation of government land creates no vested right to regularization or title.

The appellants, residents of Village Chiranga, District Surguja, filed an intra-court appeal challenging the Single Judge's order dated 03.09.2025 in WPC No. 336 of 2023.

The appellants claimed long-standing unauthorized occupation, traditional use for grazing, and agricultural cultivation over Government land recorded as Pahadi Chattan.

Despite their claims under the PESA and FRA, the land was allotted to respondent No. 12 for an industrial project.

The Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition, holding that the occupation was technically unauthorized and did not grant legal title, though it directed the State to consider rehabilitation.

1. Whether long-standing unauthorized occupation and traditional use of Government land create a vested right to legal title or regularization that can override a lawful allotment for a public purpose project.

2. Whether the present appeal should be dismissed based on the precedent set in an identical matter, Sarla Devi & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WA No. 855 of 2025).

The Court applied the principle that mere long-standing unauthorized occupation does not create a vested right to regularization, particularly when the land is required for a notified public purpose.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Joginder v. State of Haryana and Murlidhar Dayandeo Keskar v. Vishwanath Pandu Barde, which establish that unauthorized possession cannot override statutory rules governing the allotment of Government land.

The Court also integrated statutory protections under the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) and the Forest Rights Act (FRA) regarding the socio-economic rights of traditional occupiers.

The Division Bench noted that the facts and legal issues in this case were identical to those in Sarla Devi & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WA No. 855 of 2025), which was dismissed on 11.12.2025.

The Court reasoned that while the appellants had a traditional dependence on the land, they lacked a legal patta or title.

The Court found that the Single Judge had correctly balanced the State's interest in industrial development with the appellants' socio-economic vulnerability by refusing to regularize the encroachment while simultaneously directing the State to provide alternative land or rehabilitation schemes.

Since the State had already initiated compliance with these directions and had not taken coercive action to disturb possession during the interim, no grounds for interference were found.

The Court held that unauthorized occupation of Government land does not entitle the occupiers to legal title against a lawful public allotment.

The Court affirmed the directions issued to the State authorities to expeditiously implement rehabilitation and alternative allotment for the appellants in accordance with their socio-economic status and traditional rights.

No order as to costs was made.