Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Chhattisgarh/
  4. 2024/
  5. May

Nehru Ojha vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Decided on 31 May 2024• Citation: WPC/2683/2024• High Court of Chhattisgarh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                            1                                       
                                                                    NAFR            
                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR                      
                                   WPC No. 2683 of 2024                             
                  1. Nehru Ojha S/o Sombaru Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Daspur, 
                     Gram  Panchayat Saibeenkachhar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District     
                     Gariyaband, C.G.                                               
                  2. Punuram S/o Madan Yadav Aged About 44 Years R/o Village        
                     Pipalkhuta, Gram Panchayat Dhanora, Tahsil Amlipadar, District 
                     Gariyaband, C.G.                                               
                  3. Bhujbal Netam S/o Gundhar Netam Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram   
                     Panchayat Ghumrapadar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, C.G.
                  4. Bhokardhan S/o Ganeshram Aged About 31 Years R/o Gram          
                     Panchayat Ghumrapadar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, C.G.
                  5. Chitrashen S/o Ganeshram Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram          
                     Panchayat Ghumrapadar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, C.G.
                  6. Sarju S/o Ramjan Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram Panchayat        
                     Ghumrapadar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, C.G.       
                  7. Uddhav Netam S/o Nakul Netam Aged About 39 Years R/o Gram      
                     Panchayat Ghumrapadar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, C.G.
                  8. Parsuram Sori S/o Lakhidhar Sori Aged About 41 Years R/o Village
                     Pipalkhuta, Gram Panchayat Dhanora, Tahsil Amlipadar, District 
                     Gariyaband, C.G.                                               
                  9. Mehattar S/o Bansu Aged About 40 Years R/o Daspur, Gram        
                     Panchayat Saibeenkachhar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband,
                     C.G.                                                           
                  10. Bhojlal S/o Rajaram Aged About 32 Years R/o Daspur, Gram      
                     Panchayat Saibeenkachhar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband,
                     C.G.                                                           
                  11. Gonchu S/o Dhansai Aged About 45 Years R/o Daspur, Gram       
                     Panchayat Saibeenkachhar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband,
                     C.G.                                                           
                  12. Narsingh S/o Lachindar Aged About 60 Years R/o Daspur, Gram   
                     Panchayat Saibeenkachhar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband,
                     C.G.                                                           
                  13. Raviram Netam S/o Nakul Netam Aged About 41 Years R/o Gram    
                     Panchayat Ghumrapadar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, C.G.
                  14. Amrit Netam S/o Sonbaru Gond Aged About 60 Years R/o Gram     
                     Panchayat Koyba, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, C.G.   
                  15. Jairam Mandavi S/o Mayaram Mandavi Aged About 41 Years R/o    
                     Daspur, Gram Panchayat Saibeenkachhar, Tahsil Amlipadar, District

                                            2                                       
                     Gariyaband, C.G.                                               
                                                             ---- Petitioners       
                                         Versus                                     
                  1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department,
                     Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
                  2. Deputy Director Udanti Seetanadi Tiger Reserve Gariyaband, District
                     Gariyaband, C.G.                                               
                  3. Collector Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, C.G.                
                  4. Divisional Forest Officer Raipur Division, Indagaon (Bafar),   
                     Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, C.G.                          
                                                            ---- Respondents        
                 ____________________________________________________________       
                     For Petitioners    :    Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate with Mr.      
                                             K.S. Pradhan, Advocate.                
                     For State          :     Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA.               
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput                
                                      Order on Board                                
                31/05/2024                                                          
                  1 . By w a y o f th i s w ri t p e ti ti on , p e ti tio n e rs h a ve so u g h t th e
                     fo ll o wi n g re li e fs :-                                   
                         “10 .1 Th a t, th i s Ho n ’ bl e Co u rt ma y ki n d l y b e
                         pl e a se d to qu a sh /se t-a si de the imp u gn e d o rd e r
                         no ti ce da te d 1 6 .05 .2 0 2 3 (An n e xu re P-1 ) issu e d
                         b y th e re spo n d en t N o .2 , i n th e i n te re st o f
                         ju sti ce .                                                
                         10 .2 . Th a t, th e H on ’ bl e C o u rt ma y ki nd l y b e
                         pl e a se d to di re ct th e re sp o n de n t au th o ri ti e s to
                         al l o tmen t o f po sse ssi o n o f la n d a s Va n Adh i ka r
                         Pa tta w i thi n sti p u la te d ti me , in th e in te re st o f
                         ju sti ce .                                                
                         10 .3 . An y a pp ro p ria te wri t, d ire cti o n o r o rde r
                         ma y al so ki n dl y be p a ssed in fa vo u r o f th e     
                         pe ti ti o n e rs, w hi ch th i s H o n’ b le Co u rt de e ms fi t
                         in the ci rcu msta n ce s o f th e ca se . ”               

                                            3                                       
                  2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present petitioners are
                     the forest dwellers and residing in the forest for almost 40-50 years.
                     Many of them are belonging to Scheduled Tribes. Suddenly, a drive
                     was undertaken by the State Government to evict the forest dwellers.
                     Notices were issued to many of the forest dwellers, however, some of
                     them have not been served with notices. The State Authorities are hell-
                     bent to remove the petitioners from their residents. He further
                     contended that as per provisions of Section 4 of the Scheduled Tribes
                     and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
                     Act, 2006 (for short, ‘Act of 2006’), the petitioners may be permitted to
                     move appropriate application before the concerned District Level
                     Committee/Gram Panchayat for issuance of the forest rights. Till the
                     application is decided, petitioners may not be be evicted from their
                     premises/residents. He also pointed out that many writ petitions having
                     identical issues have been filed before this Court, (WPC       
                     No.2493/2024) is one of them in which this Court permitted the 
                     petitioners therein to make proper application before the appropriate
                     Forest Authorities in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the
                     Act of 2006. Hence, he prays for similar relief in this writ petition also.
                  3. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that many of the petitioners
                     not served with the notices as their names have not reflected from
                     order dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), therefore, at this stage
                     petitioners do not have any cause of action to file this writ petition.
                     However, he fairly admitted that in WPC No.2493/2024 this Court has
                     permitted the petitioners therein to move appropriate application before
                     the appropriate Forest Authorities/Authorities.                
                  4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.              

                                            4                                       
                  5. Be that as it may, from perusal of order dated 09.05.2024 (Annexure
                     P-3), it appears that similarly situated forest dwellers have been
                     granted permission to move appropriate application before the  
                     appropriate Forest Authorities/Authorities under Section 4 of the Act of
                     2006.                                                          
                  6. Admittedly, the petitioners have not moved any applications according
                     to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 2006, but at the same time,
                     Section 4 (5) of the Act of 2006 subsequently says that “no member of
                     a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller
                     shall be evicted or removed from forest land under his occupation till
                     the recognition and verification procedure is complete.” Considering
                     facts of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective
                     parties, writ petition is disposed of at this stage in terms of the order
                     dated 09.05.2024 passed in WPC No.2493/2024. Petitioners herein
                     are permitted to make proper application before the appropriate Forest
                     Authorities/Authorities in accordance with provisions of Section 4 read
                     with Section 6 of the Act of 2006 within ‘four weeks’ from today. On
                     submission  of   such   application, concerned Forest          
                     Authorities/Authorities are directed to considered and decide the same
                     strictly in accordance with law preferably within an outer limit of ‘06
                     months’ from the date of receipt of copy of such application.  
                     CC as per rules.                                               
                                                        Sd/-                        
                                                  (Sachin Singh Rajput)             
                                                        Judge                       
      Jamal/-