Disposed

Bigan Prasad Patwa v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2026WPC/5166/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a cultivator in lawful occupation of forest land, sought direction to authorities to decide his pending application for allotment of the land and grant of Bhumiswami rights. The State opposed but had no objection to the application being decided according to law. The Court directed the concerned authorities to consider and decide the pending application on merits within 60 days, staying coercive action against the petitioner during that period, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to consider and decide the pending application for allotment of forest land within 60 days; no coercive steps to be taken against petitioner during this period.

Bigan Prasad Patwa Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Land Acquisition | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

CGHC010372732022

2026:CGHC:40790

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 5166 of 2022

¶8

1 - Bigan Prasad Patwa S/o Late Kalicharan Patwa Aged About 67 Years Occupation Cultivator, R/o Village Mahuli, Post Sursuli, Police Station Tikunda, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - The Collector District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - The Sub Divisional Officer Wadrafnagar, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - The Tahsildar Wadrafnagar, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Gram Panchayat Mahuli Through The Sarpanch, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate

¶17

along with Mr. Shivam Misrha,

¶18

¶19

Advocate.

¶20

For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer.

¶21

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

18/09/2026

¶24

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶25

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to the respondent-authorities to consider upon the proposal of the petitioner for settlement/allotment of the disputed land in his. favour and to grant forest lease of Bhumiswami rights in his favour within stipulated period.

¶26

10.2 That, a command/direction may kindly be issued to the respondents alternatively to shift the site for the purpose of establishment of cow-shed to any other place which is clear and vacant.

¶27

10.3 Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including cost of the petition.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in lawful occupation of the forest land in question and has already submitted an application before the concerned authorities seeking allotment of the said land and grant of land rights in his favour. He further submits that the said application has been pending

¶29

¶30

consideration before the concerned authorities for a considerable period. The limited prayer of the petitioner is that, since his application has remained pending for a long time, the concerned authorities may kindly be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law. It is further submitted that, without deciding the petitioner's pending application, the concerned authorities have initiated proceedings for his removal from the land. Therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by filing the present petition.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner's claim regarding the subject land is required to be examined by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and law. He further submits that mere pendency of the application does not create any right or title in favour of the petitioner. However, he has no objection if the pending application of the petitioner is directed to be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

¶32

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

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the relief sought by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the pending application of the petitioner deserves to be considered and decided by the concerned authorities in accordance with law.

¶34

¶35

Accordingly, the concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the pending application of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While deciding the application, the concerned authorities shall consider the claim of the petitioner on its own merits and pass an appropriate and reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶36

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim. The concerned authorities shall be at liberty to examine the entitlement of the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶37

Since the application has remained pending since 2020, the concerned authorities shall make all endeavour to decide the same within the aforesaid period of 60 days.

¶38

Till expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in respect of the subject land.

¶39

With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶42

Raghu Jat

Bigan Prasad Patwa v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bigan Prasad Patwa v. the State of Chhattisgarh

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