Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Masong Pada S/o Late Tatem Pada – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
WP (C) No. 290 of 2014
Decided On : 16-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 - Sections 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25[a][d][b], (a)(d)(f) - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – Section 2, [ii], [iv] - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 2 - Declared land as Reserved Forest - Illegal encroachment - Petitioners challenged correctness of notification - Vide impugned notification, respondents have declared 398 acres of land as Reserved Forest in exercise of power conferred under Section 17 of Regulation – In absence of final notification area concerned by a preliminary notification, cannot be treated as reserve forest - Para 16.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent authorities have taken a stand that final notification, for an area of 398 Acres of land was published in Arunachal Pradesh Gazette and same was done as per Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891 under section 36A and notification is annexed with affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure – 4, yet such a contention left court unimpressed in as much as same is final notification and was issued under section 17 of Assam Forest Regulation - No such notification under section 36A of Assam Forest Regulation appears to have been placed on record - Stand taken by respondent authority appears to be misleading - Final notification Annexure – I issued under Section 17 of Assam Forest Regulation failed to withstand legal scrutiny as it was issued in connection with a land which was not proceeded by a preliminary notification - Impugned final notification stands quashed for being issued without following procedure prescribed under Assam Forest Regulation.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. Counsel being assisted by Mr. T. Pogo, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the State/respondent.
2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the 157 petitioners, all are residents of Sibo-Siang Colony, near Horticulture College, Pasighat, have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the notification dated 18.10.1980, published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, dated 17th November, 1980, issued by the respondent authorities as per provision of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Regulation’). It is to be noted here that vide the impugned notification, the respondents have declared 398 acres of land of Pasighat Railway area as Reserved Forest in exercise of power conferred under Section 17 of the said Regulation.
3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition briefly stated as under:
3.1. Wayback in the year 1960, a part of Pasighat Station Reserve area, measuring 162 acres of land between Pasighat Township and Sibo-Koreng river was acquired by the Union Government for maintaining the Green Belt for protection of Pasighat town from possible erosion by Sibo-Koreng river, as per Administrative Sanction No. REV-1/58, dated 14.05.1963, by purportedly making a payment of compensation amounting to Rs.52,105/- to the local people of the aforesaid area and as per letter No. REF-1/58/33, dated 03.09.1962, as per desire of the Ministry of External Affairs, the aforesaid acquired land was under direct supervision and control of the Forest Department, the proposal to constitute the Green Belt into a reserved forest was considered as the only way by which the Green Belt is to be preserved. Thereafter the Director of Forest vide his letter No. FOR/264/64/16410-12, dated 22.12.1964, asked the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Siang to publish a proposal for declaring the Green Belt as reserved forest under the name and style of Pasighat Station Reserve. Thereafter, the DFO, Siang submitted a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat vide his letter No. SFD/62/65/227-29, dated 17.01.1966.
3.2. Thereafter, the DFO, Along included some more areas to the original 162 acres of land, purportedly purchased from the villagers and thus, the total area proposed for reserved forest came to be 398 acres. Thereafter, the aforesaid proposal for declaring the Green Belt as the Pasighat Station Reserve was dully approved by the Deputy Commissioner, District East Siang, Pasighat and forwarded to the Director of Forest, vide letter No. FOR/16/65-66/11/14187, dated 03.02.1966. Consequent upon a notification issued under Section 5 of the Regulation was issued proposing to declare 398 acres of land between Pasighat Town and Sibo-Korong river as reserved forest, which was published in the Assam Gazette on 19.04.1967, covering the schedule described herein-below:
North: From a point (A) where an artificially demarcated line meets the right bank of Sibokorong river downstream upto the old suspension bridge (pointing from Sibokorong river on Pasighat G.T.C. road 102 CL … (illegible).
East: From the point (B) ….. old suspension bridge along G.T.C. Pasighat road in ……… direction till the road meet the Pasighat Ledum …… Craft Centre (point-C).
South: Thence along the Pasighat-Ledum road upto its Junction with Pasi
Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 deals with restriction on dereservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.
The court reaffirmed that the notification under the Indian Forest Act validly vested land with the State, and the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside unchallenged notifica....
The court upheld the principle that claims to ownership over lands designated as reserved forest cannot be established without following lawful de-reservation processes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the State Government to reserve forest land or wasteland under Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the consequences of vesti....
Due process must be followed in eviction actions from forest land, providing occupants the opportunity to prove lawful possession before enforcement.
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
