Quashed

Budhram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Aug 2026WPC/4626/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed eviction notices issued under the Indian Forest Act while proceedings under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 were pending. It directed authorities to complete the forest rights recognition process within 120 days and restrained dispossession. The Court clarified it did not adjudicate merits of the entitlement claim.

What did the court decide?

Impugned eviction notices under Section 80-A IA 1927 quashed; directions to complete Forest Rights Act proceedings within 120 days; protection against dispossession until final decision.

Budhram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

Digitally signed YOGESH by YOGESHTIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.08.07 19:21:21 +0530

CGHC010358902022

2026:CGHC:34795

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 4626 of 2022

¶8

Budhram S/o Sudhuram, Aged About 54 Years R/o Khas Para, Mulmula, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ministry Of Rural Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Ministry Of Forest And Climate Change, Mahanadi Bhavan, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

3 - Collector, District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶14

4 - Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

5 - Divisional Forest Officer, South Kondagaon Forest Division, Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶16

6 - Sub Divisional Forest Officer, East Kondagaon Forest Sub- Division Kondagaon Chhattisgarh. 7 - Tehsildar, Tehsil Office Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A.

¶20

¶21

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board

¶22

07.08.2026

¶23

1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned eviction notices/orders dated 15.09.2022 and 17.10.2022 issued by respondent No.5 under Section 80-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the forest land in his possession. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the proceedings for grant of forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 are still pending and the petitioner's name already finds place in the list of eligible beneficiaries prepared by the competent authorities, the very same authorities have initiated eviction proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, without concluding the proceedings under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The petitioner, therefore, seeks quashment of the impugned notices/orders and consequential protection from dispossession. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):-

¶24

“ A. A writ and/or order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶25

¶26

B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the impugned notices/order dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) and dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure P-2) and / or action pursuant to the said notices/order dated 15.09.2022 and 17.10.2022 be declared illegal, arbitrary and in violation of fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner herein and further for the reason that the same is against the principles of natural justice.

¶27

C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate writ do issue restraining the respondents from dispossession or in any way interfering with the petitioner's right.

¶28

D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

E. Cost of the petition and compensation may also be awarded. ”

¶30

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community and has been in continuous possession and cultivation of the subject forest land for several decades, earning his livelihood therefrom. It is submitted that after the enactment of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, the respondent authorities initiated proceedings for recognition of forest rights, conducted survey and verification through the Gram Panchayat and the District Forest Rights Committee, and prepared the list of eligible beneficiaries in the year 2012-2013,

¶31

¶32

wherein the name of the petitioner has been included. It is further submitted that the proposal for grant of Forest Rights Patta has substantially been processed and only ministerial formalities remain to be completed.

¶33

3. Learned counsel further submits that despite the pendency of the petitioner's claim under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, respondent No.5 has issued the impugned eviction notices dated 15.09.2022 and 17.10.2022 under Section 80-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 directing the petitioner to vacate the very same land. It is contended that the respondent authorities cannot simultaneously proceed under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 for recognition of the petitioner's forest rights and, at the same time, seek to evict him from the said land under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Such action is arbitrary, contrary to the object and scheme of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, violative of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights.

¶34

4. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned notices/orders dated 15.09.2022 and 17.10.2022 be quashed and the respondents be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the subject land. It is further prayed that the respondents be directed to complete the proceedings for recognition and grant of Forest Rights Patta in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶35

¶36

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal or fundamental right warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

6. Learned State counsel further submits that the land in question forms part of Protected Forest No. 679 situated within Forest Range Mulmula, South Forest Division, Kondagaon, and that the petitioner, along with other persons, has illegally encroached upon the protected forest land. It is submitted that, upon detection of the encroachment, Preliminary Offence Report (P.O.R.) No.18405/02 dated 12.08.2022 was registered against the petitioner and other encroachers, whereafter their statements were recorded. According to the respondents, the petitioner admitted his possession over the forest land and claimed to be in occupation since 1994-95, whereas, upon verification, including satellite imagery/Google Maps, it was found that the encroachment was made only after the year 2012-13. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of approximately 0.516 hectares of protected forest land.

¶38

¶39

7. Learned State counsel lastly submits that, in view of the illegal encroachment, the Divisional Forest Officer was fully competent to issue the impugned notices under Section 80-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 directing removal of the encroachment. It is further submitted that the petitioner neither submitted any reply to the notice nor vacated the encroached land despite sufficient opportunity. The respondents contend that the impugned notices have been issued strictly in accordance with law and in furtherance of the object of protecting forest land from illegal encroachments. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed.

¶40

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material available on record.

¶41

9. In view of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the following questions arise for determination:

¶42

(i) Whether the respondent authorities were justified in initiating eviction proceedings under Section 80-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 against the petitioner when proceedings for recognition of his forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 were admittedly initiated and his name was included in the list of beneficiaries prepared by the competent authorities?

¶43

¶44

(ii) Whether the impugned notices dated 15.09.2022 and

¶45

17.10.2022 are sustainable in law?

¶46

(iii) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled?

¶47

10. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to notice the object behind the enactment of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act itself recognizes that forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers were subjected to historical injustice by reason of non-recognition of their traditional forest rights. The Act, therefore, was enacted as a beneficial legislation to recognize and vest forest rights in eligible forest dwellers and to provide a complete statutory mechanism for determination of such rights.

¶48

11. The Act creates a complete code regarding recognition and vesting of forest rights. It contemplates constitution of Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee, District Level Committee and other authorities for verification and determination of claims. The process prescribed under the Act is not an empty formality but is intended to ensure that no eligible forest dweller is deprived of his livelihood except in accordance with the statutory procedure.

¶49

12. One of the most significant safeguards incorporated by Parliament is contained in Section 4(5) of the Act, which expressly provides that save as otherwise provided, no member of a forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted

¶50

¶51

or removed from forest land under his occupation until the recognition and verification procedure is complete.

¶52

13. Thus, the embargo created under Section 4(5) is mandatory in nature. The legislative intention is abundantly clear that the process of recognition of forest rights must precede any coercive action for eviction. The provision protects not merely those persons whose claims have been finally accepted but also those whose claims are yet to attain finality in accordance with the statutory procedure.

¶53

14. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that after the coming into force of the Act of 2006, survey and verification were conducted by the competent authorities, recommendations were made by the Gram Sabha, and the petitioner's name was included in the list of beneficiaries prepared for grant of Forest Rights Patta. According to the petitioner, only ministerial formalities remained before final issuance of the patta.

¶54

15. Significantly, in the reply filed by the respondents, there is no categorical assertion that the petitioner's claim under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 was ever rejected by the competent authority. Equally, no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the statutory process contemplated under the Act had attained finality against the petitioner.

¶55

16. The principal defence of the respondents is that the petitioner is an encroacher; that a Preliminary Offence Report dated

¶56

¶57

12.08.2022 has been registered; that statements of the petitioner and other persons were recorded; and that Google satellite imagery allegedly shows encroachment after the year 2012-13. These are matters relating to the merits of the petitioner's entitlement. Such issues undoubtedly fall within the domain of the competent authorities constituted under the Forest Rights Act and cannot be conclusively determined in collateral eviction proceedings initiated under the Indian Forest Act.

¶58

17. Once the respondents themselves admit that proceedings under the Forest Rights Act had been initiated, the competent authorities were required to first conclude those proceedings in accordance with law. The respondents could not bypass the statutory mechanism created by Parliament by resorting to Section 80-A of the Indian Forest Act before culmination of the recognition process.

¶59

18. The contention of the respondents that the petitioner has illegally encroached upon the land may or may not ultimately be found to be correct. However, such disputed factual questions cannot be made the foundation for defeating the statutory protection contained in Section 4(5) of the Forest Rights Act. Until the competent authority records a final determination under the Act, the protection against eviction continues to operate.

¶60

19. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents cannot simultaneously pursue two mutually inconsistent courses

¶61

¶62

of action. On one hand, they processed the petitioner's claim under the Forest Rights Act by conducting survey, verification and preparation of the beneficiary list; on the other hand, before bringing those proceedings to their logical conclusion, they issued eviction notices under the Indian Forest Act. Such action defeats the very object of the beneficial legislation enacted to remedy historical injustice suffered by forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes.

¶63

20. The impugned notices, therefore, cannot be sustained, not because this Court has adjudicated upon the petitioner's entitlement to forest rights, but because the mandatory statutory procedure prescribed under the Forest Rights Act has not been completed. The legality of eviction proceedings must necessarily depend upon the outcome of the proceedings under the Act of 2006.

¶64

21. Consequently, the questions framed by this Court are answered as under:

¶65

(i) The respondent authorities were not justified in initiating eviction proceedings under Section 80-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 without first concluding the petitioner's claim under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in accordance with law.

¶66

(ii) The impugned notices dated 15.09.2022 and 17.10.2022 cannot be sustained in law and deserve to be quashed.

¶67

¶68

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to protection against dispossession until the proceedings under the Forest Rights Act attain finality.

¶69

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:

¶70

(i) The impugned notices/orders dated 15.09.2022 and 17.10.2022 issued by respondent No.5 under Section 80-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 are hereby quashed.

¶71

(ii) The respondent authorities are directed to conclude the proceedings relating to the petitioner's claim under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶72

(iii) Till a final decision is taken by the competent authority on the petitioner's claim under the Forest Rights Act, no coercive steps shall be taken and the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject land except in accordance with law.

¶73

(iv) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's entitlement to grant of forest rights. The competent authority shall independently examine the petitioner's claim on the basis of the evidence

¶74

¶75

available on record and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment.

¶76

(v) The competent authority shall complete the entire exercise within 120 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶77

(vi) Till the application is decided by the competent authority, the interim order passed earlier vide order dated 10.11.2022, whereby it was directed that, purely as an interim measure, the status quo as existing shall be maintained, shall continue to remain operative.

¶78

23. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

Sd/- Sd/-

¶81

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶82

Yogesh

Budhram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases