Nafr High Court
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:46629 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 60 of 2022 1 - Daulat Ram Gond, S/o Shri Tijakram Gond, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh District Mahasamund, : 2 - Ramesh Kumar Gond, S/o Shri Anandram Gond, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
3 - Premshankar Patel, S/o Shri Hetram Patel, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - Manohar, S/o Shri Sharda Prasad, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Station Tumgaon, And District Tahsil 5 - Ravindra Kumar, S/o Shri Tulsiram, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 6 - Anand Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Nilkanth Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 7 - Roshanlal Patel, S/o Shri Pilauram Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 8 - Dwarika, S/o Shri Bhakti Ram, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Station Tumgaon, And District Tahsil 9 - Subhash Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Ramdin Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 10 - Khemraj Patel, S/o Shri Puniram Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh -2- 11 - Dhananjay Patel, S/o Shri Yadram Patel, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 12 - Smt. Romin W/o Dwarika Prasad, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 13 - Krishna Kumar, S/o Shri Suratlal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Station Tumgaon, And District Tahsil 14 - Ramkumar Patel, S/o Shri Suratlal Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 15 - Harishankar Patel, S/o Shri Fodilal Patel, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 16 - Nathuram Sen, S/o Shri Ganguram Sen, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 17 - Gesh Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Pilauram Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 18 - Shivkumar, S/o Shri Bindeshri, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Station Tumgaon, And District Tahsil 19 - Kirtan, S/o Shri Sonsai, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Chhattisgarh Tumgaon, Mahasamund District Tahsil And 20 - Anandram Patel, S/o Shri Ruplal Patel, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 21 - Ugrasen, S/o Shri Chandrika, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Station Tumgaon, And District Tahsil 22 - Shambhu, S/o Shri Sankirtan, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Station Tumgaon, And District Tahsil 23 - Ratilal, S/o Shri Butu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Station Chhattisgarh Tumgaon, Mahasamund District Tahsil And 24 - Tulsiram, S/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 64 Years R/o Village - Malidih, Police Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Station Tumgaon, And District Tahsil 25 - Uddhav Prasad, S/o Shri Kamal Prasad, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village - Malidih, -3- Police Station Tumgaon, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Revenue Department, New Rajdhani, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Chhattisgarh Raipur, 2 - The Collector, Mahasamund, Collectorate Campus, Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahasamund, Collectorate Campus, Mahasamund, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4 - The Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund, Forest Department, Civil Lines, Nearby Collectorate, Police Station Mahasamund, Tahsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 5 - The Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahasamund, Civil Lines, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh And District Nearby Collectorate, Tahsil 6 - The Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation Limited, Bar Nawapara, Through - The Managing Director, Bar Nawapara Pariyojna Mandal, Raipur, C-52, Sector-2, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Mr. Manharanlal Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.09. 2025 1) The present petition is directed against the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by the respondent No.2–Collector, Mahasamund in Revenue Case No. 06/B- 121/2013-14 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Dulari & Others), whereby the lease granted to the petitioners in respect of forest land has been cancelled. -4- 2) Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioners are permanent residents of village Malidih, Tehsil & District Mahasamund. Their ancestors have been residing in the said village for about 300 years. The petitioners belong to agriculturist families and their livelihood is dependent upon forest produce. Considering their long possession, the State of Chhattisgarh granted them lease by order dated 14.02.2014. However, by the impugned order dated 01.09.2014, the Collector cancelled the lease without following the due procedure provided in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short the Act, 2006) and the Rules framed thereunder. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable, as the procedure prescribed under Rules 6, 7 and 12 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007 (for short the Rules, 2007) has not been followed. It is argued that the Collector has no authority to withdraw forest rights once granted. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter of Lalba Nana Bethekar v. Sub-Divisional Officer & Others, 2017 (4) Mh.L.J. 433. 4) on the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petition is not
Decision
maintainable, as the impugned order is appealable. It is further submitted that upon enquiry, it was found that the petitioners did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for grant of forest land lease. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perusal documents placed on file. 6) From perusal of the documents, it is evident that the petitioners had been issued documents of title under Annexure-II in terms of Rule 8H of the Rules, 2007. Once such recognition of forest rights is granted, the grievance, if any, can only be addressed before the Sub-Divisional Level Committee under Rule 14, and thereafter before the District Level Committee under Rule 15. Neither the Act, 2006 nor the Rules, 2007 confer power upon the Collector, acting individually, to -5- cancel or withdraw forest rights already granted. 7) In the present case, the Collector, Mahasamund has passed the impugned order in his official capacity without exercising the jurisdiction of the District Level Committee, and without following the procedure prescribed under the Act, 2006 and the Rules, 2007. The procedure adopted is not sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.09.2014 passed by respondent No.2 is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim