Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Smt. M. SHARMA, J.
Chandmari Tea Co.and another, etc -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and others -Respondent
Civil Rule Nos. 1923 of 1993, And 3683, 3685 and 3845 of 1994 And 5282 of 1995; 4167 of 1996 And 2397 of 1998
Decided On : 29-06-1999
WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 - [SECTION 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 35] - NOTIFICATION - EXTENSION OF TERRITORY OF BURACHAPARI RESERVE FOREST AND KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK - CHALLENGE - DUE PROCESS OF LAW - SETTLEMENT OF LAND - RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST - PUBLIC PURPOSE - ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION - FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES - PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged Notifications extending the territory of Burachapari Reserve Forest and Kaziranga National Park, claiming violation of due process and seeking settlement of land. Some petitioners also sought alternative pasture ground for grazing cattle.
Finding of the Court:
1. Notifications were issued after following due process of law, including publication of proclamation, inviting claims/objections, and conducting inquiries. 2. Petitioners failed to prefer claims/objections within the stipulated time, despite opportunities provided. 3. Occupation of Government land by paying Tauzi Bahi revenue does not create legal/constitutional rights. 4. Conversion of Burachapari Reserved Forest into a Wild Life Sanctuary was done in compliance with statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. 5. Addition of areas to the National Park/Sanctuary was necessary for wildlife protection, environment improvement, and forest safeguarding.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned Notifications were issued after following due process of law? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get settlement of the land in question?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government has the power to declare its intention to constitute an area as a National Park or Sanctuary under Section 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 2. Before such declaration, the Collector is required to conduct an inquiry and determine the existence, nature, and extent of any rights claimed in relation to the land in question, as per Sections 19 to 26 of the Act. 3. The Collector is required to publish a proclamation specifying the limits of the proposed sanctuary and requiring persons claiming any rights to prefer claims within a specified period, as per Section 21 of the Act. 4. The State Government is required to publish a final Notification specifying the limits of the area to be comprised within the sanctuary and declaring it as a sanctuary on a specified date, after the period for preferring claims has elapsed and all claims have been disposed of, as per Section 26 of the Act. 5. The acquisition of land or rights for the purpose of a National Park or Sanctuary is deemed to be acquisition for a public purpose, as per Section 25(2) of the Act. 6. The State has a fundamental duty to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country, as per Article 48A of the Constitution. 7. Every citizen of India has a fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife, as per Article 51A(g) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: Writ petitions challenging the Notifications extending the territory of Burachapari Reserve Forest and Kaziranga National Park were dismissed. The Court held that the Notifications were issued after following due process of law and that the petitioners were not entitled to get settlement of the land in question.
By this common judgment and order I propose to dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions as the facts and points of law involved in these cases are common.
2. In these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged Notifications dated 11-9-74, 10-9-85 and 25-10-85 and other Notifications issued by the Govt. of Assam notifying extension of the territory of Burachapari Reserve Forest and Kaziranga National Park as per the Schedule mentioned in those Notifications. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the cancellation of Grazing Permits and prayed for a direction to provide for alternative pasture ground for grazing their cattles.
3. In Civil Rule No. 1923/93 the petitioners have challenged the Notifications dated 13-6-85 and 3-8-89 and the impugned notice dated 9-12-92 issued by the Regional Forest Officer, Bagori by which petitioners were asked not to proceed with Tea Plantation in the area in question which was handed over to the Forest Department by the Revenue Department for the purpose of movement of wild lives to take shelter in the adjacent hills during the rainy and flood season. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner Company has been running the Tea Estate for about 60 years and carrying on plantation and manufacturing of tea in the said Tea Estate, that out of the total garden land of 2538 Bighas, 2189 Bighas are periodic patta land belonging to the petitioner and the remaining 349 Bighas are Govt. land in respect of which the petitioner Company has been paying Tauzi Bahira revenue since 1935. After obtaining approval for extension of the Tea Garden from the Tea Board, it is contended, petitioner Company cultivated 331 Bighas out of the said 349 Bighas of land by planting tea bushes. It is further contended that settlement of the said land was under consideration. In 1977 about 37 Bighas of land has been acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying Pipe Line by Oil India Ltd. and the tea bushes worth lakhs of rupees were destroyed, reducing the plantation area. Asserting its rights and interest over the said part of land, petitioner claims that for development and extension of the tea garden petitioner took a huge amount of Bank loan under the State Govt. Scheme for tea plantation in the Estate; that pursuant to the approval of the ARDC and Bank loan, petitioner Company carried out the extension of tea plantation in the entire area within its jurisdiction including the area of Govt. land without any interference.
4. Petitioners grievance is that by Notification dated 13-6-85 issued by the respondent No. 6 u/S. 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short "the Act, 1972") the Govt. incorporated certain areas of Kanchanguri village measuring about 89.754 Hectors into the Kaziranga National Park. Though as per the said Notification no portion of the garden land of the petitioner falls in the said Kanchanguri village, in the boundary description of the said Notification, it is contended, some references were made to certain areas crossing the boundary of the petitioners tea estate, though garden area falls under Mouza Duarbugora and not under the said Kanchanguri. It is further contended that the description given in the Notification was confusing and incorrect. Petitioner-Company filed objections against this Notification on 21-10-85 (Annexure-B) stating that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Again on 3-8-89 respondent-Secretary, Forest Department issued Notification u/S. 35 of the Act, 1972 wherein also no reference in Schedule A was made to Duarbagora Mouza and Malini village under whose jurisdiction the tea garden falls and also no reference was made as to the boundaries. Further contention is that even after publication of the Notice no process was started to vest the land of the tea garden to the authorities of the Wild Life Forest Department; that even Government Circular dated 22-2-88 issued by the Revenue Department also did not disturb the petitioner
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
