Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
B. L. HANSARIA AND J. SANGAMA, J.
Anchar Ali and others -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 269 of1980
Decided On : 15-07-1987
FOREST LAND - SETTLEMENT - CANCELLATION - NATURAL JUSTICE - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - RESUMPTION NOTICE - REASONS FOR RESUMPTION.
Fact of the Case:
34 families approached the Court against an order cancelling the allotment of land made in their favor in Bhutupunjee Forest village in 1975. They contended that the cancellation violated the principle of promissory estoppel and natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case as there was no clear and unequivocal promise that the land would not be resumed. However, the cancellation of the allotment without providing an opportunity to show cause violated the principle of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can prevent the resumption of land allotted to forest villagers? 2. Whether the cancellation of the allotment without providing an opportunity to show cause violates the principle of natural justice? 3. Whether reasons for resumption must be recorded in the resumption notice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply where there is no clear and unequivocal promise that the land would not be resumed. 2. The cancellation of the allotment without providing an opportunity to show cause violates the principle of natural justice. 3. Recording of reasons in the resumption notice is not a part of natural justice, but it is required to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. It held that the respondents could initiate action as contemplated by Rule 14 and act in accordance with law.
HANSARIA, J. :- Forests are part of our national wealth. Their contributions are varied. They not only provide fuel and other inputs for various industrial and commercial activities but serve some other needs of human society also. They contribute in a significant way to preserve the ecological balance whose growing importance is being realised day by day. The contribution of forests and trees in preventing soil erosion and flood is well-known. The flora and fauna of a country are largely dependent upon them. They shelter and protect agriculture and influence local climatic extremes. They ensure clear water supply and prevent pollution. They are essential components of attractive landscapes and are becoming important for urban population of industrial countries as a source of recreational facilities. But when there is a rapid growth of population the forests become easy victim as the growth in population demands more land for settlement. Even so, a balance has to be struck between the different needs of forests. At the national level great importance is being given, of late, to the preservation of forest wealth. It is because of this that while amending the Constitution by 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, a new Art.48-A was inserted stating that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. Not only this, while enumerating the fundamental duties in Art. 51-A of the Constitution, it was stated in Cl. (g) that it would be the duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife. . . . .. . . ." The mere fact that the Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties are not enforceable in a Court of Law is not enough to disregard the same inasmuch as Art.37 of the Constitution states that the Directive Principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be duty of the State to apply this principle in making laws. In this connection, we may refer to Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1987 SC 1109, in para 4 of which it was pointed out that when "the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulder and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making authority."
2. We may also refer in this connection to Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 359. wherein the power of the highest Court of the land was invoked for maintaining environmental and ecological balance. Realising the importance of the subject the Court took suitable steps. It pointed out that natural resources are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation.
3. Factual Matrix.
In the present application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, heads of 34 families have approached this Court against an order dt. 13-7-79 (Annexure- G to the petition) by which allotment of land made on 3-5-75 in their favour in Bhutupunjee Forest village was cancelled. It is their contention that this could not have been done as in pursuant to the allotment made earlier they had improved the land and had built residential structures. The cancellation has been questioned mainly on two grounds : (i) principle of promissory estoppel would not permit this to be done; and (ii) the cancellation having been ordered without providing any opportunity to show cause is hit by the principle of natural justice.
4. To appreciate these contentions we may note the broad facts of the case which lie in a narrow compass. An approach was made on behalf of the petitioners to the Conservator of Forests on 25-1-74 to allot some plots of land in any forest reserve within the Cachar District as the petitioners were poor cultivators and had no means of maintenance. The Divisional Forest Officer, Cachar Division, informed the petitioners that the Conservator of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
