Samsul Haq Ansari vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: -

1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the notices dated 17.03.2026 (Annex.P/1) filed cumulatively may kindly be quashed and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of each of the petitioners and passed the appropriate orders.

2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the order dated 17.04.2025 (Annex.P/2) may kindly be quashed, in its entirety.

3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to examine the case of each of the petitioners for allotment of the said land either under the Act of 2023 known as Chhattisgarh Nagariya Khestron Ke Awashin Vyaktiyon Ko Patta Dhriti Adhikar Adhiniyam, 2023 or under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and respondent authorities may kindly be directed to rehabilitate the petitioners before demolishing the superstructure/ residential houses and they may further be directed to provide the shelter to the petitioners who are in possession of the lands from more than 15-20 years.

5] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the petitioners, who are poor persons, are in possession of Nazul land situated at Ward No. 41, Atal Chowk, Police Station Nawagarh, Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja and they have constructed their small residential houses where they are residing since more than 15 years. In this respect, they are having various government documents and also paying government taxes. The petitioners have been issued separate eviction notices (Annexure P-1 Colly) dated 17-3-2026 to vacate said land stating therein that the said land is forest land. He further submits that, since petitioners are landless poor persons of below poverty line and having no shelter, therefore, they are ready to file fresh application before the competent authority/Collector, Sarguja for grant of forest rights certificate /Patta on other government land under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (henceforth, referred to as 'the Act of 2006'). Hence, he submitted that this writ petition may be disposed of by granting aforesaid liberty to the petitioners and respondent No. 4/Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja/competent authority may be directed to decide the said application within stipulated period in objective manner, till then, interim protection may be granted to the petitioners in respect of notices issued to them.

Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State would submit that, petitioners are in possession of Mahamaya Pahad/Dabripani, Ambikapur, which was recorded as Nazul land, but that Pahad was notified as a reserved forest, therefore, the respondent No. 4/Collector, Surguja has passed order dated 29-7-2025 to delete the entry of Nazul land and it be recorded in revenue documents as reserved forest by transferring the same to the Forest Department, as such, aforesaid Pahad comes under Compartment No. RF 2582 (Reserved Forest ). Therefore, petitioners have been issued said eviction notices under Section 8A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. He further submits that, if petitioners file application for their rehabilitation/settlement, then the same shall be decided by the respondent No. 4 in accordance with law.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

As per record, earlier notices were issued to the petitioners on 17-1-2025, which were challenged by them by filing WPC No. 859/2025 (Jalauddin Shah and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.). Said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order (Annexure P-6) dated 19-3-2025 directing the petitioners to approach concerned Divisional Forest Officer, and the Divisional Forest Officer was directed to examine each and every case of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders within 10 days. Thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja Division, Ambikapur passed impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 17-4-2025 and dismissed the claim of petitioners on the ground that, they could not file any document of their right or title on said land.

It is not the claim of the petitioners that, they are owner of the said land, which they have possessed and constructed houses on Mahamaya Pahad/Dabripani. Even otherwise, aforesaid Pahad is said to be notified as a reserved forest. But, the fact remains that, petitioners are poor persons and as per their claim, they are residing on said Mahamaya Pahad/Dabripani, Ambikapur by constructing houses since more than 15 years, therefore, if they are asked to vacate the said land, then it is the duty of the State authorities to rehabilitate them in appropriate place after examining factual aspects of petitioners' claim.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad 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..."

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..."

As contended by learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners are poor persons and they have no other shelter except the government land possessed by them, therefore, having considered aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court and the limited prayer of learned counsel for the petitioners, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, the same is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to file appropriate application before the respondent No. 4/Collector, Surguja/competent authority within a period of one month from today for grant of forest rights certificate under the Act of 2006 along with all necessary documents or to grant alternative government land. In the event of filing such application by the petitioners before the respondent No. 4/Collector Surguja/competent authority, it is directed to decide the same expeditiously preferably within a further period of 60 days from the date of filing of the application along with a copy of this order. Till then, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of notice dated 17-3-2026 and the impugned order (Annexure P-2) dated 17-4-2025 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Surguja.

It is further observed that, if the petitioners fail to file such application within aforesaid stipulated period, then the interim protection granted in their favour shall loose its efficacy.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.