JUDGMENT :

1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed by the original defendant nos. 2 and 3 in RCS No. 92/2022 (applicant nos. 1 and 2 herein).

2. The original suit was filed by the original plaintiff (non-applicant no. 2 herein) for declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that Tapowan Buddha Vihar Bikku Singha, Ramgiri, Post Bothali, Tahsil Chimur, District Chandrapur which is a public trust and he is residing since 1976 in Mouza Nimdhela, Compartment No. 60, area 4.00 H.R. of the Forest Land. It is his contention that, the Ministry of Law and Justice enacted the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (in short, “Dwellers Act”). The plaintiff put his claim under Section 3(2) of the said Act in 2011 to the Forest Rights Committee, Bothali, Tah. Chimur, District Chandrapur. In the meeting of Sub-Divisional Level Committee, Warora, it recommended the proposal to the District Level Committee for granting 0.20 R land (in fact 4.00 H.R.) to the Gram Panchayat Bothali for social centre on 07/04/2011. The said claim is still pending. The plaintiff filed a new claim before the Forest Rights Committee, Bothali on 04/05/2022. In spite of informing to defendant nos. 1 to 3 about pending claim, defendant no. 2 issued a letter on 17/05/2022 for action of removal of encroachment, therefore, suit came to be filed.

3. After issuing summons to the defendants, defendants gave their appearances. Defendant nos. 2 and 3 filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “C.P.C.”). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that, the plaintiff in his suit has averred that encroachment in question is in Reserve Forest Compartment No. 60 and it is made by them only. As such, in view of Section 26(5) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short, “Forest Act”), the suit is barred. The scheme of Section 26(5) is only to protect the forest from encroachments by trespasser and the same is intended to remove those illegal encroachments. The area in which the encroachment is made by the plaintiff is on the border of core area of Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve and is situated in Buffer zone of Tadoba. If such encroachment is made over the forest land, the same will be frustrating the scheme of Indian Forest Act. The plaintiff filed his reply to the said application.

4. Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties rejected the application of the defendants. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the applicant that vide letter dated 14/08/2015, the claim of the plaintiff came to be rejected. In view thereof, he has no right and if at all, he has a grievance about rejection, there are remedies under Indian Forest Act and not in the Civil Court.

5. As against this, Shri A.A. Dhawas, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2 vehemently argued that his claim is pending and there are directions of the State Government itself that if the appeal is pending, till decision in the claims of Traditional Forest Dwellers, they should not be removed from their places. Learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2 drawn my attention to the Government Resolution (GR) dated 11/11/2016 wherein it is specifically directed that, till the decision of District Level Committee on appeal by the dwellers under the “Dwellers Act”, no action of removal of encroachment be executed. Learned counsel for non-applicant no. 2 vehemently argued that no order of rejection of their claim under Section 3(2) of Dwellers Act is intimated to the plaintiff. It is also contended by learned counsel that unless there is any efficacious remedy provided, it cannot be said that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the following citations/authorities:-

1) Dhulabhai Etc. V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.[AIR 1969 SC 78]

2) Ram Swarup and ors. V/s. Shikar Chand and anr. [AIR