The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed forest authorities to conduct a proper demarcation of disputed land before taking any action against a petitioner’s residence, emphasizing that claims of forest land encroachment cannot override established community land use without due process.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that forest authorities cannot unilaterally classify land as forest land without verifying its status as abadi land under local records and Gram Panchayat resolutions. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation, and the forest authorities to decide it within 60 days, after conducting a physical demarcation if necessary. Status quo was maintained pending decision.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, a resident of Village Salar in Sarangarh-Bilaigarh district, constructed his house on land he and other villagers have occupied for decades. The land is part of the Gram Panchayat’s abadi area, as confirmed by a resolution passed by the Forest Rights Committee of Gram Panchayat Salar on 17 January 2022. Despite this, the Incharge Forest Circle Officer issued a notice on 23 December 2025, alleging that the house stood on Forest Compartment No. 929 and demanding its demolition.
The petitioner responded with a detailed reply on 29 December 2025, attaching evidence of long-standing habitation and the Panchayat’s resolution. No response was given. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking quashing of the notice, a direction to consider his reply, and a stay on demolition.
The respondents, representing the State Forest Department, did not dispute the existence of the Panchayat resolution or the petitioner’s long-term occupation. They argued only that the land’s classification required technical verification.
The Legal Issue
Can forest authorities issue demolition notices based solely on administrative claims of forest land status, without verifying whether the land is legally classified as abadi under local records and Gram Panchayat resolutions?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Forest Rights Committee’s resolution dated 17 January 2022, duly recorded and signed, established the land as abadi. He cited the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which mandates recognition of habitation rights where communities have lived for generations. He emphasized that multiple households in the area, including government-built structures, occupy the same land, making the claim of encroachment inconsistent and discriminatory.
For the Respondent
The State counsel conceded that the petitioner’s representation had not been formally considered and acknowledged the need for technical verification. He did not contest the validity of the Panchayat resolution but maintained that final classification required demarcation by forest officials under the Chhattisgarh Forest Rules. He submitted that if a fresh representation was filed, it would be duly processed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court found that the petitioner’s rights to habitation could not be disregarded on the basis of a unilateral notice. It noted that the Forest Rights Committee’s resolution, though not a final legal title, constituted a prima facie administrative recognition of abadi status under the Forest Rights Act. The Court held that such recognition must be given due weight before any coercive action is taken.
"The existence of a Gram Panchayat resolution recognizing the land as abadi, coupled with decades of continuous habitation, raises a legitimate claim that cannot be brushed aside by a mere administrative assertion of forest land status."
The Court further observed that the Forest Department’s duty under Section 3(1)(a) of the Forest Rights Act includes verifying claims of habitation rights through proper inquiry, not through summary notices. It rejected the notion that forest land classification is an absolute bar to abadi rights, especially where local governance bodies have already affirmed such rights.
The Court emphasized procedural fairness: the petitioner was not seeking a declaration of title, but an opportunity for his claim to be evaluated through the proper administrative channel. The direction to file a fresh representation was not a dismissal, but a recognition of the need for institutional due process.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes that forest authorities cannot proceed with demolition or eviction based solely on land classification records without considering local administrative recognitions of abadi land. Practitioners representing rural residents must now ensure that any notice of forest encroachment is met with a formal request for verification under the Forest Rights Act, supported by Gram Panchayat records.
The ruling reinforces that the Forest Rights Act is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary state action. It also clarifies that status quo orders are appropriate when there is credible evidence of long-standing habitation, even without formal title deeds. Future petitions challenging forest evictions should include evidence of Panchayat resolutions, community usage, and government infrastructure on the same land to strengthen the claim of abadi status.
Distinguishing factors include cases where no local body has recognized habitation rights, or where land is clearly within a notified protected forest without any historical settlement. This judgment applies only where abadi status has been administratively acknowledged.
