Jalsai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2025:CGHC:55852

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4451 of 2022

¶6

Jalsai S/o Late Naghira Aged About 70 Years R/o Village - Baserakala, P.S. - Chalgali, Tahsil - Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Collector Balrampur, District - Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Sub - Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Divisional Forest Officer Balrampur, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development - Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.18 14:53:39 +0530

¶16

2 / 5

¶17

7 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat - Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶18

8 - Gram Panchayat - Baserakala Through The Secretary Gram Panchayat - Baserakala, Tahsil - Balrampur District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For State/Resp. No. 1 to 6 : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate

¶21

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

17/11/2025

¶24

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following

¶25

relief(s):-

¶26

“ 10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.3.

¶27

10.2. That, any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of case.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was in possession of land bearing kh. no.505 admeasuring 0.40 hectare situated at Village- Baserakala, Tahsil- Balrampur. He is a member of Scheduled Tribe category. Based on application submitted by petitioner before Forest Committee, patta of land possessed by petitioner was granted in his favour on 27.06.2021. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that some members of village panchayat intended to construct a gauthan on the land possessed by petitioner with ill-

¶29

3 / 5

¶30

intention and submitted application before the Collector in this regard. Collector directed Sub Divisional Officer (R) to conduct an inquiry and to submit its report. Accordingly, Sub Divisional Officer (R) submitted its inquiry report which is filed as Annexure R-1 along with return submitted by State. The Collector after receipt of report has issued order Annexure P-1 dated 05.09.2022 cancelling forest right patta granted to petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice in this regard. Order Annexure P-1 is in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, it is not sustainable.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that fact as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct that village Panchayat had taken a decision to construct a gauthan at a particular land. Petitioner has submitted application for grant of forest right of the said land and within a period of one month from the date of filing of application, entire proceedings of granting forest right patta have been concluded, which prima facie appears to be not in accordance with law. Based on application/complaint received by Village Panchayat, Collector directed an inquiry to be conducted by SDO (R) and in the report of inquiry conducted by SDO (R), it has come that the procedure of allotment of patta in name of petitioner is not in accordance with due process of law and therefore patta granted in name of petitioner was cancelled. There is no arbitrariness or illegality in the proceeding initiated by respondent No.3/Collector in passing order Annexure P-1.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed along writ petition as also reply.

¶33

4 / 5

¶34

The main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioner is that order Annexure P-1 is passed in violation of principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner, more so when order Annexure P-1 is adversely affecting rights of petitioner.

¶35

It is not in dispute that the Collector directed for an inquiry to be conducted by SDO (R) on complaint received with regard to granting patta in the name of petitioner without following due process of law. Inquiry report prepared by SDO (R) also depicts that complaint was made by one Smt. Manju Shandilya who is Sarpanch of Village Panchayat- Baserakala. Application was submitted before the Collector and thereafter Collector directed SDO (R) to submits its report. Report was submitted on 23.12.2021 and thereafter order Annexure P-1 is passed. From contents of impugned order Annexure P-1 it reveals that Collector has taken decision for cancelling patta issued in favour of petitioner only on recommendation/report of Sub Divisional Officer from which it does not appear that before passing order, Collector has ever issued show cause notice to petitioner granting him any opportunity of hearing. Nature of impugned order which is passed against the petitioner is of cancelling patta allotted in his name which is adversely affecting his rights and therefore minimum which is required on the part of Collector who is a public authority is, to at least issue show cause notice to petitioner providing opportunity of hearing to a person going to be adversely affected by his subsequent order, which, in the facts of case, is missing and, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, impugned order Annexure P-1 is not sustainable in eye of law. Accordingly, it is set aside.

¶36

5 / 5

¶37

Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.3/Collector would be at liberty to take a fresh decision on the report submitted by SDO (R) in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the

¶38

petitioner, if he so desires.

¶39

Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶40

Praveen

Jalsai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalsai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Rathore Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Shoaibe Dhebar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Puri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Udal Vs Beena

Heeralal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramcharan Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh