Until Verification of Facts – Interim Protection Ensuring That No Demolition Work is Carried Out – No Coercive Steps: Chhattisgarh High Court

 1 NAFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURWrit PetitionNo. 499211.Sandhya Atram W o Arvind Atram Aged About 43 Years Caste Gond R oAntagarh Ward No. 08 Tahsil Antagarh District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s)Versus1.State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Revenue And DisasterManagement Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2.Collector District Magistrate Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh 3.Sub Divisional Officer Revenue Kanker District Kanker Chhattisgarh 4.Tahsidar Antagarh District Kanker Chhattisgarh 5.Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division East Bhanupratappur DistrictKanker Chhattisgarh. 6.Assistant CommissionerDistrict Kanker Chhattisgarh RespondentsFor Petitioner:Shri Sumit Singh Advocate. For State:Shri Aditya Tiwari Panel Lawyer. Hon ble Shri Justice P. Sam KoshyOrder on Board09.12.2021 .1.Aggrieved by the Annexure P 1 dated 09.11.2021 the present writ petitionhas been filed.2.Vide the said impugned notice the petitioner has been called upon to giveexplanation as to why the illegal construction being carried out in theproperty over which the forest rights has been given to the petitioner onthe property situating in Khasra No.442 Village Antagarh measuring 0.02Hectares be not demolished.3.Contention of the petitioner is that he has a valid forest right beingconferred upon the said piece of land vide order dated 16.01.2009 andsince then the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the said property.However now the dispute is that the possession is being disturbed by therespondent authorities particularly by respondent no.4 Tehsildar Antagarh. 2 4.State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submits that it isonly a notice which has been issued as of now the petitioner would befree to submit a detailed reply supported with all relevant documents insupport of his right over the said property and respondent no.4 shall takeappropriate decision in accordance with law thereafter. The writ petition asof now accordingly is premature.5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the fear of thedemolition which has made him to rush to the Court and prays for anappropriate interim protection from the respondents ensuring that nodemolition work is carried out during the proceedings are finalized by therespondent no.4 on the Annexure P 1 notice.6.Given the said facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note ofthe submission put forth by the counsel for the parties this Court is of theopinion that since Annexure P 1 is only a notice dated 09.11.2021 callingupon the petitioner to submit his explanation ends of justice would meet ifthe writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the petitioner toapproach respondent no.4 and to submit his reply if he has not filed it tillnow within a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy ofthis order and respondent no.4 in turn shall take appropriate decisionthereafter.7.It is further ordered that till the respondent no.4 takes an appropriatedecision on Annexure P 1 subject to the reply of the petitioner beingsubmitted within 15 days there shall be no coercive steps initiated by therespondent no.4 on the property over which the petitioner in 2009 wasgranted forest rights. 3 8.It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on themerits of the case respondent no.4 shall be passing an order purely on itsown merits after due verification of facts.9.With the aforesaid liberty the present writ petition in its present formstands disposed off.10.Certified copy today. Sd (P. Sam Koshy)Judgeinder 

Summary: Interim protection ensuring that no demolition work is carried out in  property that need verification of facts to meet ends of justice is upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh through the learned bench led by Hon’ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy in the case of Sandhya Atram Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh (WP(C) 4997 of 2021) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been summoned to explain why the illegal construction being carried out on the property over which the petitioner has been granted forest rights on the property situated in Khasra No.442 Village Antagarh totaling 0.02 hectares be not demolished, as per the said challenged notice. The petitioner claims that he has a legal forest right on the property, which was granted by order dated January 16, 2009, and that he has been in peaceful possession of it since then. The issue present in the case is that the respondent authorities, particularly Tehsildar, Antagarh, interference with the possession. On the other hand, state counsel opposing the petition contends that it is only a notice that has been issued as of now, and that the petitioner is free to submit a detailed reply supported by all relevant documents in support of his right to the property, after which respondent will make an appropriate decision in accordance with law, and thus the writ petition is thus premature as of now. The learned counsel of petitioner stated that the threat of demolition has prompted petitioner to rush to the Court, and he requests an appropriate interim protection from the respondents, ensuring that no demolition work is carried out while the respondent finalizes the proceedings related to the property. Since only a notice dated 09.11.2021 requesting the petitioner to submit his explanation is issued, the Court believes that ends of justice will be served if the writ petition is dismissed, directing the petitioner to approach respondent and submit his reply, if he has not done so already, within a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order court direct to do same, and respondent to take appropriate action. Court disposed petition and further ordered that there shall be no coercive measures taken by the respondent on the property over which the petitioner was granted forest rights in 2009 until the respondent takes an appropriate decision, subject to the petitioner’s reply being submitted within 15 days, and the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and thus respondent shall be passing an order purely on its own merits after due verification. Click here to read the Judgment