2026:CGHC:19267-DB Digitally signed by NAFR ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.04.28 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

10:18:39 +0530 WA No. 297 of 2026

1 - Jashraj Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Pokarsingh Rajpurohit, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Indagaon, Tah. Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

2 - Rajendra Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Pokarsingh Rajpurohit Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Indagaon, Tah. Mainpur, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus

1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Forest Department Mantralya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar New Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Deputy Director Udanti Seetanadi Tiger Reserve Distt-

Gariyaband (C.G.)

3 - The Forest Range Officer Indagaon (Dhurwagu D) Bafar Distt-

Gariyaband (C.G.)

4 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mainpur Distt- Gariyaband (C.G.)

5 - The Tahsildar Tahsil Office- Mainpur Distt- Gariyaband (C.G.)

6 - The Secretary Gram Panchayat Indagaon Tahsil Mainpur Distt-

Gariyaband (C.G.)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

27.04.2026

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State on I.A. No.02, which is an application for condonation of delay of 05 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No.02 is allowed and delay of 05 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned.

3. On 20.04.2026 and 21.04.2026, the matter was taken up for consideration, wherein notice was directed to be issued and duly served upon respondent No.6, as it was found to be a necessary party before this Court.

4. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.6 to contest the present writ petition when the matter was called out on both occasions.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the State submit that due and sufficient opportunity has already been afforded to respondent No.6, yet there is no representation on its behalf.

6. In the aforesaid circumstances, and with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed with the hearing of the matter in absence of respondent No.6.

7. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):-

“1. Set aside the order dated 08.01.2026 (Ann.A/1) passed in WPC No.2907/2024 (Jashraj Singh Rajpurohit and another Vs State of CG & ors) to the extent it directs the appellants to vacate 108 sq. meters of land.

2. Restore the earlier interim protection granted by the learned Single Judge on 14.06.2024 in WPC No.2907/2024.

3. Direct maintenance of status quo till final disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice.”

8. The present intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure-A/1) passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 2907/2024, whereby the interim order dated 14.06.2024 granting stay on the operation and effect of the impugned letter dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) has been modified. It is the case of the appellant that such modification, at the interlocutory stage, has virtually resulted in a final determination of rights without adjudicating the writ petition on merits, thereby frustrating the very purpose of the writ proceedings and rendering the petition infructuous. Accordingly, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred assailing the said order.

9. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/writ pe