CHANDAN KUMAR vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPC/1664/2026
Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 10th April 2026.
CNR: CGHC010140292026
Filing Number
WPC/8110/2026
Filing Date
06-Apr-2026
Registration No
WPC/1664/2026
Registration Date
08-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )
Sub-Category
MATTERS RELATING TO ENCROACHMENTS ON GOVERNMENT LAND AND DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS. ( 1708 )
Judicial Branch
Writ Section
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 17-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.CHANDAN KUMAR
Adv. VIVEK BHAKTA,A.N.BHAKTA,A.N.BHAKTA, ,A.N.BHAKTA
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.
-
2.The Secretary
-
3.The Collector
-
4.The District Forest Officer
-
5.The Sub Divisional Officer (Forest)
-
6.The Sub Divisional Officer (Rev)
-
7.The Forest Range Officer
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF
Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed 16 writ petitions challenging forest land eviction notices but stayed coercive action, directing landless petitioners to pursue settlement claims under the Forest Rights Act 2006 within 30 days through prescribed statutory procedures. The court recognized the petitioners' constitutional right to shelter while affirming that illegal encroachment cannot be condoned without following due process of law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Fresh Matters
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
-
06-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPC/1664/2026
Summary The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed 16 writ petitions challenging forest land eviction notices but stayed coercive action, directing landless petitioners to pursue settlement claims under the Forest Rights Act 2006 within 30 days through prescribed statutory procedures. The court recognized the petitioners' constitutional right to shelter while affirming that illegal encroachment cannot be condoned without following due process of law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts