Dismissed

Mohan Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2026WPC/429/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner allotted land under the Forest Rights Act challenged a show cause notice alleging encroachment of additional land without demarcation. The Court held a mere show cause notice providing opportunity of hearing cannot be assailed in writ proceedings and dismissed the petition, leaving him free to raise his claim before the competent authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohan Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:6247

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 429 of 2026

¶6

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.02.04 16:31:42 +0530

¶7

Mohan Gupta S/o Shri Hazari Lal Gupta Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Chivarakuta, Police Station- Singhoda, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner.

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶11

Forest Range Officer Saraipali District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶12

3. The Collector District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Pathak, Advocate. For Res/State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer.

¶15

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

04/02/2026

¶18

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

¶19

filed for the following reliefs:-

¶20

" 10.1 . That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly allow this petition and quash the impugned notice dated 24.12.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the respondent no. 2, in the interest of Justice.

¶21

¶22

10.2 . That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to follow due procedure of law and after proper demarcation determine the possession or encroachment of the petitioner if any.

¶23

10.3 .Any other relief which deemed fit and proper may also be issued looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the interest of the petitioner."

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been allotted land under the Forest Rights Act bearing Khasra No.320/5, admeasuring 1.400 hectares at Village Chivrakuta, Janpad Panchayat Saraipali, District Mahasamund vide Certificate No.0112514 (Annexure-P/2). However, on 24.12.2025 respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice (Annexure-P/1) to the petitioner alleging that he has encroached 1.110 hectares land apart from the aforesaid land of 1.400 hectares allotted to him and also constructed a shade on the said land. He submits that the show cause notice has been issued without demarcation of the said land and without following the due procedure, therefore, the impugned notice is not sustainable. Hence, this petition may be admitted for hearing.

¶25

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that Annexure-P/1 is only a notice which can be replied by the petitioner before the concerned Authority, therefore, notice only cannot be challenged in the writ petition as opportunity of being heard is duly provided in the said notice. Hence, this petition is not maintainable and same deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶27

¶28

Perusal of contents of notice (Annexure-P/1) dated 24.12.2025 shows that apart from land admeasuring 1.400 hectares allotted to the petitioner, he has encroached 1.110 hectares of land and also encircled the encroached land with barbed wire. Further, notice (Annexure-P/1) is merely a show cause notice, in respect of which, opportunity of being heard is also provided to the petitioner. In such a situation, at this stage, the aforesaid notice (AnnexureP/1) cannot be challenged by way of this writ petition. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.

¶29

However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise his claim/assertion before the competent Authority in accordance with law.

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. No cost(s).

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶33

Ajay

Mohan Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mohan Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Fatima Tigga Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cheruram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Anupama Asthana Vs Uttam Prasad Razak

Sangeeta Mishra Vs Vicky Verma

Sanjay Nikunj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vasu Choubey Vs Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank