Vriksha Ram Rathia v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1075 of 2015 • Vriksha Ram Rathia S/o Devdhar Rathia Aged About 62 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o. Village And Post Krondha, Khadgaon, Tahsil And P.S. Dharamjaigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Chief Conservator Of Forest, Department Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Jail Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Conservator Of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Divisional Forest OfÏcer, Forest Division, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

5. District Collector, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Shivendu Bharadwaj, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Arun Sao, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 19/11/2015 Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. (2) The petitioner had earlier preferred WP(C) No.974 of 2014, seeking direction to the respondents to decide his representation which was preferred by him raising grievance that the ofÏcials of the Forest Department have cut the trees standing on the land owned by him. The

writ petition was disposed of on 14.05.2014 directing the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur to hold a fact finding enquiry and thereafter, take appropriate decision on the representation.

(3) Learned counsel for the State draws attention of this Court to the contents of the return, wherein, it is stated that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur conducted a fact finding enquiry. In the enquiry report dated 12.08.2015 (Anenxure R/4), it has been concluded that the subject land is a government land and is not owned by the petitioner. (4) In view of the above, no interference in this petition can be made , because, there exists a dispute concerning the title of the subject land. If the petitioner is still aggrieved and he feels that the land belongs to him, he may work out his remedy before the Civil Court to establish his title and may make prayer for grant of all consequential reliefs. (5) The writ petition stands finally disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Shyna