1 - Shakuntala W/o Shobharam Aged About 50 Years R/o Rampur, Tehsil - Charama v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Ma- hanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2559 of 2025 1 - Shakuntala W/o Shobharam Aged About 50 Years R/o Rampur, Tehsil - Charama, Dis- trict - Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Ma- hanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2-Collector District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Charama, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Forest Officer Division Kanker, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh 5 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Department, Kanker, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Charama, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh 7 - Gram Panchayat Rampur Through Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Rampur, Janpad Pan- chayat Charama, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh 8 - Sub Divisional Level Committee Charama, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel lawyer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 11.06.2025 Order on Board 1. With the consent of both the respective parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 2 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by illegal arbitrary and unreasonable act of respondent authorities, that ancestors of petitioner are in possession of land before 1940 when village Rampur was in gram panchayat Puri, but after formation of new gram panchayat Rampur in the year 2019-20, land in possession of petitioner came under gram panchayat Rampur, all the villagers in gram panchayat belong to Schedule Tribes and petitioner’s family residing there belongs to Scheduled Caste, because of which villagers have been out casted. That the claim of forest right patta has been rejected by gram panchayat Rampur without considering the documentary evidence that the petitioner is residing and cultivating in the land for more than 85 years and Sub Divisional Level Committee, has passed the order in one line without assigning any reason. Hence by way of filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs: (a) that, the Hon’ble court kindly be pleased to set aside the effect and operation of order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure P/1), in the interest of justice. (b) That this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to grant forest right patta to petitioner in the interest of justice. (c) That this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent authorities to consider all the documents of petitioner before passing any 3 order in the interst of justice. (d) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favor of the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Gram Van Samiti have deliberately over looked the document showing ancestors of petitioner’s husband were in possession of land prior to 1940- 41. Petitioner being member of Scheduled Caste and rest of the villagers being member of Scheduled Tribe did not allowed the petitioner to mix with them and raised objection in grant of patta in favor of the petitioner. Whereas Section 6 of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 issues guidelines to first the claim for forest right patta is put before gram sabha, but in present case because of malafide intension gram sabha villages and forest guard respondents are against petitioner, the lawful claim of petitioner has been rejected, overlooking the requirement. The first requirement is that the claimant should be resident of that land for three generation, the family tree and Ryotwari Bahi proves that petitioner’s family is residing in Rampur before 1940. Therefore, rejection of petitioner’s claim gram sabha is contrary to documents available on record. 4. He also contended that the order passed by the Sub Divisional level Committee is not speaking order, the order does not show 4 that the committee has applied his mind before taking decision. Moreover the said committee has not given sufÏcient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who is the aggrieved person. Therefore it is a clear violation of the Section 6 of 2006 Act. Non compliance of principle of natural justice respondent authorities have violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. Hence he prays for above mentioned relief. 5. 6. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the relief sought by the leaned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection. On bare perusal of the record available, this court finds that earlier the present petitioner has filed WPC bearing no. 4341 of
Decision
2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2023 by this court where it was disposed of with the following direction/observation: 7.In the aforementioned facts of the case, instead of keeping this writ petition pending, seeking reply from the respondents. I am inclined to disposed of this writ petition at this stage with a direction to respondent no. 3 to take decision on the application submitted by the petitioner under the Act of 2006 expeditiously, 5 preferably within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of order. 8. Till the decision on the application is taken, respondents are directed to maintain status quo with respect to possession of the petitioner over the subject land as it exists today. 8. On further perusal of the records available it transpires that as per the order dated 19.07.2024 ( Annexure P/1) the gram sabha and gram van samiti have jointly passed a proposal for not giving forest right patta to the petitioner and it was also afÏrmed by the Sub Divisional Level Committee. However, Section 6 of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Act, 2006 (in short “Act of 2006”) states as under: 6. Authorities to vest forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and procedure thereof:- 1. The gram sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within the local limits of its jurisdiction under this Act by receiving claims consolidating and verifying them and preparing a map delineating the area of each recommended claim in such manner as may be prescribed for exercise of such rights and Gram Sabh shall, then, pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the Sub Divisional Level Committee. 6 2. Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha may prefer a petition to the Sub-Divisional Committee constituted under sub-section 3 and the Sub Divisional Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition: Provided that every such petition shall be preferred within sixty days from the date of passing of the resolution by the Gram Sabha: Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. 3. The State Government shall constitute a Sub Divisional Level Committee to examine the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha and prepare the record of forest rights and forward it through the Sub Divisional OfÏer to the District Level Committee for a final decision. 4. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Sub- Divisional Level Committee may prefer a petition to the District Level Committee within sixty days from the date of decision of the Sub Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition: Provided that no petition shall be preferred directly before the District Level Committee against the resolution of the Gram Sabha unless the same has been preferred before and considered by the Sub Divisional Level Committee: Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. 9. Hence, Section 6 of the said Act, 2006 clearly states that any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha may prefer a petition to the Sub-Divisional Committee constituted 7 under sub-section 3 and the Sub Divisional Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition, provided that every such petition shall be preferred within sixty days from the date of passing of the resolution by the Gram Sabha provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case. But in the present case it is clear that the petitioner who is the aggrieved person was not given the opportunity of hearing which is injustice on the part of the petitioner by the respondent authority. Also it is a clear violation of the Section 6 of the Act of 2006. 10. After close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court has opined that the order jointly passed by the Gram Sabha and Gram Van Samiti of not giving forest right patta to the petitioner, which too got afÏrmed by the Sub Divisional Level Committee is remanded back with a clear direction to the concerned Sub Divisional Level Committee to take a fresh decision on the application for grant of forest right already submitted by the petitioner under the provisions of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Act 2006 by giving the petitioner/aggrieved person a proper as well as reasonable opportunity of hearing preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this 8 order. 11. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authority shall decide the case on its own merits without being prejudice by the order of this court. 12. Till the fresh decision on the application is taken, respondents are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the possession of the petitioner over the subject land as it exists today. 13. In view of the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) alfiza Judge