Suppression of material facts and failure to exhaust statutory remedies precludes equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner claimed continuous possession and agricultural use of 3.00 hectares of forest land (Room No. 170) since 1968, based on an alleged government lease (Annexure P/1).

In July 2021, the Gram Panchayat Kamarji sought to allot this land for a "Gouthan" (cattle shelter) project.

The petitioner filed a representation to the Collector and subsequently this writ petition to prevent dispossession.

The State argued the petitioner was an encroacher, that Annexure P/1 was merely a money receipt rather than a lease, and that the Van Gram Samiti had already rejected the petitioner’s claim for forest rights on 13.03.2021.

The State further produced evidence that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that he was already a beneficiary of other government land allotments totaling 2.55 hectares.

1. Whether the petitioner established a legally enforceable right over the subject forest land to warrant protection under Article 226 of the Constitution?

2. Whether the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Act of 2006 and the suppression of material facts barred the petitioner from seeking equitable relief?

The court primarily applied the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which mandates a specific statutory mechanism for adjudicating forest rights through the Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee, and District Level Committee.

The court also considered Section 246 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, regarding rights in abadi areas.

Furthermore, it applied the equitable principle under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which dictates that a party suppressing material facts or failing to approach the court with "clean hands" is disentitled to discretionary relief.

The court found that the petitioner failed to prove a valid lease or ownership, as the document produced was only a money receipt and not a title deed.

It reasoned that since the land was part of government forest land and the petitioner had already been found ineligible for forest rights by the competent committee, the court could not interfere, especially since the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory appeals provided under the Act of 2006.

The court also noted that the land was earmarked for a public purpose (Gouthan) following a valid Gram Sabha resolution and administrative sanction.

Most significantly, the court determined that the petitioner’s failure to disclose his existing government land allotments constituted a suppression of material facts, which precluded the grant of equitable relief.

It held that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right over the forest land and that the claim was founded on a mere apprehension of dispossession from land he occupied as an encroacher.

The court concluded that the petitioner must pursue statutory remedies under the Act of 2006 if aggrieved by the rejection of his forest rights and that his lack of candor regarding prior land allotments disqualified him from any relief under writ jurisdiction.

No order as to costs was passed.