High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:38972 WPC No. 4052 of 2025 Natwar Lal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal Agrawal Aged About 64 Years R/o Near Gandhi Pratima, City - District Raigarh Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.08.07 10:44:35 +0530 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, City - District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Forest Officer Raigarh Forest Division, Chakradhar Nagar, City - District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Raigarh, City - District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 4-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gharghoda, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh 5 - Tahsildar Gharghoda, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:- “a. to kindly call for the entire records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. b. to kindly issue a writ, order or direction directing the 2 respondent authorities to award fair and adequate compensation to the petitioner in respect of 50885 hectares of land bearing Khasra No. 130/1, situated in Village Masahati, Patwari Halka No. 34, Tehsil Gharghoda, New Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh, which has been utilized by the Forest Department without acquisition. c. to kindly direct the respondent authorities to take necessary action based on the findings recorded in the reports submitted by the Tahsildar, Tamnar and the Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue), Gharghoda and to initiate acquisition proceedings under Section 11(iii) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. d. to kindly direct the respondent authorities to complete the entire process of acquisition and disbursement of compensation and/or allotment of alternative land in a fair, lawful and time-bound manner. e. to kindly pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the present petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite of the undisputed fact that the private land belonging to petitioner’s father, respondents have failed to provide adequate compensation to the petitioner for the land bearing Khasra No. 130/1 admeasuring 5.855 hectares. In this respect he further submits
Decision
that the respondent no. 3 has illegally and arbitrarily disposed of Revenue Case No. 04/B-121/2023-24 without taking the proceedings to their logical conclusion as contemplated under Section 11 (iii) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 3. He further submits that respondent no. 03 had itself initiated the proceedings by registering the revenue case and had directed the subordinate revenue officials to conduct an inquiry and submit their reports. The concerned officers, after due verification and 3 field inspection submitted their reports affirming the factual position as stated by the petitioner-namely, that the private land owned by the petitioner’s late father has indeed been utilized as forest land. However, despite these categorical findings, respondent no. 03 arbitrarily disposed of the matter on 25.11.2024, merely stating that demarcation is required, without proceeding further under Section 11(iii) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 4. He also submits that since the passing of the order dated 25.11.2024, no steps have been taken by the respondent authorities to initiate or resume proceedings, nor has the petitioner been informed of any development. The petitioner’s private land has been continuously utilized for a public purpose, namely as forest land, without acquisition or award of any compensation or alternative land. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the relief sought by counsel for petitioner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the document available with utmost circumspection. 7. Bare perusal of the record available, reveals that petitioner’s father late Shri Ratan lal Agrawal, had lawfully purchased a parcel of land bearing Khasra No. 130/1, admeasuring 5.885 hectares, situated in village Masahati, Patwari Halka No. 34, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh, through a registered sale deed dated 03.01.1969. After the demise of petitioner’s father on 28.11.1996, 4 the petitioner inherited the aforesaid land on the basis of a duly executed and valid will made by his father in his favour. It is evident that in the year 1985, land of the petitioner was brought under the forest proceedings. Petitioner made several representation before the concerned authorities seeking restoration of the land records and clarification regarding the status of land (Annexure P/3). The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the concerned respondent authorities approached this Court by filing WPC No. 2670/2022(Annexure P/5). However it was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.06.2022. 8. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 received a communication from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department bearing letter No. 6227/184/CAS/2023/Saat-1 dated 20.10.2023. Pursuant to the said communication, the Collector/respondent no. 3 registered a revenue case and directed the concerned revenue authorities to conduct an inquiry and submit a report on the matter (Annexure P/6). Pursuant to the direction issued by respondent no. 3/Collector inquiry was conducted and respondent no. 4 as well as respondent no. 5 concurred with the findings of each other and specifically confirmed that the land bearing Khasra No. 130/1 admeasuring 5.855 hectares was originally owned by petitioner’s father and now it is recorded as forest land in the official records (Annexure P/8 and Annexure P/9 respectively). On 25.11.2024 after perusal fo the inquiry report respondent no. 3/Collector 5 passed an order wherein he stated that after proper demarcation of the said land only, it can be ascertained that the land belongs to petitioner’s father or not (Annexure P/10). Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a review petition before this Court on 03.03.2025 (Annexure P/11). 9. Section 11 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 states as under:- 11. Power to acquire land over which right is claimed.–(1) In the case of a claim to a right in or over any land, other than a right of way or right of pasture, or a right to forest produce or a water-course, the Forest Settlement-officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part. (2) If such claim is admitted in whole or in part, the Forest Settlement-officer shall either (i) exclude such land- from the limits of the proposed forest; or (ii) come to an agreement with the owner thereof for the surrender of his rights; or (iii) proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894). (3) For the purpose of so acquiring such land (a) the Forest Settlement-officer shall be deemed to be a Collector proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894); (b) the claimant shall be deemed to be a person interested and appearing before him in pursuance of a notice given under section 9 of that Act; (c) the provisions of the preceding sections of that Act shall be deemed to have been complied with; and (d) the Collector, with the consent of the claimant, or the Court, with the consent of both parties, may award compensation in land, or partly in land and partly in money. 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and after due diligence this Court finds that both the authorities namely the Tahsildar, Tamnar and Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue after due inquiry submitted their separate reports clearly confirming that the land in question belongs to petitioner’s father and had been merged into forest land without due process or compensation. It has been explicitly mentioned in the official records that the name 6 of petitioner’s father on land bearing Khasra No. 130/1 admeasuring 5.855 hectares has been recorded. Despite of the categorical findings in the reports of the revenue officers and in the light of admitted position respondent-Collector has passed an impugned order dated 25.11.2024 wherein instead of deciding the matter on merits and instead of demarcating the said land has sent the matter to the land record. 11. Therefore, this Court after careful perusal of the record, submission made by the counsel for the parties and in light of Section 11 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is of the considered opinion that the order passed by respondent no. 3/Collector is unjust and against the provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Hence, the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 is set aside and it is remanded back to the Respondent no. 3/Collector and is directed that Respondent no. 3/Collector after due diligence and with the help fo the Forest Officers and Subordinate Officers of Collector, Raigarh i.e. Respondent no. 4 and 5 demarcate the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 130/1 area 5.885 hectare within 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, thereafter, proceed in accordance with law/rules and regulations for the purpose of compensation. 12. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the present petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE