Disposed

Nandau v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026WPC/2014/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by tribal community members whose land, identified under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, was acquired for railway construction seeking protection and alternative land. The High Court rejected the plea to invoke direct writ jurisdiction, holding that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of approaching the concerned Collector under the State Government's Rehabilitation Policy, 2007. The Court directed the petitioners to file an application within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the concerned Collector by filing an appropriate application with relevant documents within 15 days of receipt of this order for consideration and decision within 60 days.

Nandau Vs Union of India — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010099542024

2026:CGHC:40673

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2014 of 2024

¶7

1 - Nandau S/o Ratiram Aged About 70 Years R/o Devrikala, Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Maan Singh S/o Rai Singh Dhruwe Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Devrikala, Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Belasa Bai W/o Nandu Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Devrikala, Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

Versus

¶12

1 - Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Railway, Near The Sansad Bhavan (Parliament House) Raisina Road, New Delhi.

¶13

2 - General Manager South East Central Raiway, New Gm Building Sec Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Through General Manager South-East Central Railway, New M Building Sec Railway, Bilaspur

¶14

3 - General Manager South East Central Railway New Gm Building Sec Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

4 - Collector Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

5 - Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Pendra Road District GaurelaPendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶17

6 - Forest Divisioinal Officer, Marwahi District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

7 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department District GaurelaPendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Samidha Karambekar, Advocate

¶21

¶22

	on behalf of Mr.	Malay Shrivastava,
	Advocate
For Respective	: Mr. Ramakant Mis	hra, D.S.G. and Mr.
Respondents	Abhyuday Tripathi,	P.L.

¶23

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD

¶24

ORDER ON BOARD

¶25

17.09.2026

¶26

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were granted rights over the land under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and that their land has subsequently been acquired for the construction of railway lines. She further submits that the petitioners have neither been adequately protected nor provided with any alternative land. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

¶27

2. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India– Railways submits that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appropriate application before the concerned Collector under the Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, formulated by the State Government. It is submitted that the petitioners may file an appropriate application seeking rehabilitation, which shall be considered and decided by the concerned Collector in accordance with law.

¶28

¶29

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶30

4. Since a rehabilitation policy is in place under which the concerned Collector is required to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners ought to have approached the concerned Collector in the first instance.

¶31

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners are directed to approach the concerned Collector by filing an appropriate application, along with all relevant documents, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In turn, the concerned Collector shall consider and decide the said application, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a further period of 60 days from the date of receipt of such application.

¶32

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) JUDGE

¶34

Saurabh

Nandau v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandau v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases