Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:3431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 452 of 2025 1 - Ziyauul Huque Ansari S/o Shri Inamul Huque Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Md. Faruk S/o Shri Mohd. Ashraf Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
3 - Husna Ara Ansari W/o Shri Md. Anis Ansari Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Mudasir Ansari S/o Shri Maharum Ansari Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 5 - Ziyauul Ansari S/o Shri Javed Akhtar Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 6 - Akhtar Ansari S/o Shri Sahabuddin Ansari Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 2 / 5 7 - Abdul Mannan Ansari S/o Shri Janual Abidin Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 8 - Shahid Ansari S/o Shri Sufani Ansari Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 9 - Aslam Ansari S/o Shri Akhtar Ansari Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 10 - Mukim Ahmed S/o Shri Gulam Abdul Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 11 - Ismile Khalifa S/o Shri Hameed Khalifa Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 12 - Ramjan Ansari S/o Shri Nizam Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 13 - Jumman Ansari S/o Shri Mazid Ansari Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 14 - Aaisha Khatun W/o Late Shri Anul Shah Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 15 - Usman Gani Rehmani S/o Shri Mohd. Ismile Aged About 70 Years 3 / 5 R/o Ward No. 41 Atal Chowk Nawagrah, Thana- City Kotwali Ambikapur, Tehsil- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Forest Department, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 3 – Collector, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, C.G. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, C.G. 5 – Tahsildar, Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, C.G. 6 - Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General alongwith For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the notice dated 17/01/2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2/ Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Ambikapur, District 4 / 5 Surguja by which the petitioners are directed to remove the alleged encroachment from the forest land. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that earlier notice of removal of encroachment has been passed vide notice dated 15/05/2017 which was a show cause notice issued to them by the respondent authorities. He further submits that the reply to the notice dated 15/05/2017 has been submitted by the petitioners but thereafter without considering the said reply to the notice, no action were taken however, all of a sudden the removal of encroachment notice dated 17/01/2025 has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on instruction, submits that earlier in the year 2017, notices were issued to all the encroachers however, they failed to submit any proof of allotment and title over the land which has been encroached by the petitioners. He further submits that the encroached area which is under challenge is a notified area under the Indian Forest Act and it was declared as reserved forest vide notification dated 20/10/1949. He would further submit that an inspection has been made on 19/01/2025 by the revenue authority wherein it has been found that the encroached lands are declared as reserved forest area. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents, particularly the notice dated 17/01/2025. 5. Perusal of the impugned notice of removal would show that earlier 5 / 5 on 15/05/2017, notices for the same cause were issued to the petitioners and on the basis of the said notices, the present removal of encroachment order has been issued by the respondent No.2/ Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Forest Division Ambikapur, District Surguja. It is clear from the notice that only 24 hours time has been given to the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment. 6. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate to direct all the petitioners herein to approach the DFO by tomorrow i.e. 21-1-2025 pursuance to the removal notice dated 17/01/2025 by explaining and disclosing the authority and allotment on the basis of which they are having possession over the land in question and thereafter, DFO is directed to examine each and every case of the petitioners and by considering the explanation made by the petitioners, pass appropriate orders within a period of 5 days. 7. It is made clear that till then status quo, in respect of the land in question, as it exists today, be maintained by both the parties.
Decision
8. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 9. Certified copy today. $. Bhilwar Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE