Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE
Mukesh Deori Son of Shri Hiteswar Deori – Appellant
Versus
State of AP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction notices issued for unauthorized occupation. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 22) |
| 2. claims for compensation under larr act discussed. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 26) |
| 3. arguments against jurisdiction of eviction notices. (Para 7 , 12 , 14 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 25) |
| 4. counterarguments from the state regarding property rights. (Para 13 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's acknowledgment of legal standards in eviction. (Para 21 , 23 , 24 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 33) |
| 6. conclusion on the legality of eviction notices. (Para 29 , 30 , 32 , 34) |
| 7. final dismissal of writ petitions. (Para 35) |
JUDGMENT :
KARDAK ETE, J.
Heard Mr. S. Mow, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)No.403/2024 and Mr. D. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 133(AP)/2024, WP(C)134(AP)/2024, WP(C) 135(AP)/2024, WP(C) 136(AP)/2024, WP(C) 137(AP)/2024, WP(C) 138(AP)/2024, WP(C)139(AP)/2024, WP(C) 140(AP)/2024, WP(C) 141(AP)/2024, WP(C)142(AP)/2024, WP(C)143(AP)/2024 & WP(C) 144(AP)/2024. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents; Mr. M. Kato, learned DySGI for respondent Union of India and Mr. A. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Oil India Limited.
2. Ag
The court upheld eviction notices from Reserve Forest land, affirming the authority of the Divisional Forest Officer and denying compensation claims under the LARR Act due to illegal encroachment.
Eviction of encroachers from reserved forest land requires lawful notice detailing specific land claims and adherence to principles of natural justice.
Due process must be followed in eviction actions from forest land, providing occupants the opportunity to prove lawful possession before enforcement.
The court established that claims of ancestral ownership do not negate the legal status of land declared as reserve forest, allowing for prosecution of encroachers.
Point of Law : Illegal occupants/encroachers are not entitled to any prior notice.
Notice under Section 35(3) IFA for MPFA vesting must be by authorised officer, served on true owner pre- or proximately to appointed day; invalid notice fails strict compliance, preventing land class....
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 court established that evictions in reserved forests must comply with fair procedures as outlined by the Supreme Court, ensuring unauthorized occupants are granted a hearing and proper notice bef....
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
