SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Jhk) 484

Jharkhand High Court
Tapen Sen, J.
Manohar Lal Jain - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
C.W.J.C. 1872 Of 2001
Decided On : 16 April, 2003

Headnote:Indian Forest Act, 1927 Section 29 and 30 o/w Section 3 of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 Prohibition for carrying out any non-forest activities on the land in question -Civil Court held the land in question rayati land - revenue authorities harassing the petitions by saying that not with standing the judgment of the Court land continues to be forest land Dy. Commissioner being a Revenue Authority had no business to comment against judiciary - impugned order set aside - petition allowed (paras 20 to 24)

       

ORDER

Tapen Sen, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.3.1999 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent No. 3 (Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Magistrate, Giridih Forest Division, Giridih) in B.P.L.E. Case No. 73 of 1997, whereby and whereunder he held that Plot No. 248 of the Madhuban Notified and Demarcated Forest Land was a public land and accordingly directed the encroachments to be removed within fifteen days. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2000 (Annexure-10) passed by the respondent No. 2 of (Deputy Commissioner, Giridih) in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 3 of 1999/13 of 1999, whereby and whereunder although he held that possession had been granted to the petitioner by the Civil Court, yet he directed that the parties should approach the competent authority to resolve the matter in relation to possession granted by the Civil Court on the plot in question. He further directed the petitioners not to carry out any non-forest activities such as construction etc. and directed compliance of the Honble Supreme Courts Order.

2. The main ground of attack of the petitioner is that the lands are admittedly raiyati lands belonging to the petitioner, having been acquired by a registered "Patta" in the year 1913 and on the basis of a judgment of a Civil Court, raiyati right and title was declared as far back as in the year 1969, whereafter the petitioner was granted possession through Civil Court and as such summary proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act was not maintainable.

3. The short facts which are necessary to be recorded for purposes of adjudication of this case is that the Petitioner is the Manager of the Samadh Shikhar Digambar Jain Bispanthi Kothi situated at Madhuban which is a religious and charitable society (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The said Society established various Dharmshalas through out the country, one of which is situated at Madhuban and is known as the Digambar Jain Bispanthi Kothi.

4. According to the petitioner, by reason of a registered raiyati settlement dated 3.6.1913, the said Society was granted settlement of a total area of 165 acres of Gair Mazurwa Khas land situated on Plot No. 248 and 146 under Khata No. 36 of Village Madhuban by the then Landlord.

5. Accordingly, the Society became a raiyati in respect of the said land and continued to be in possession thereof on payment of rent, firstly to the ex- landlord and then to the State, after vesting.

6. By reason of a Notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, dated 11.8.1948, bearing No. 9533-VI F-48-R, the State of Bihar took forcible possession of these lands. Thereafter the Society claimed for release of the same on the ground that it was their raiyati land which could not have been made a subject matter of Notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act because, under the provisions of the said Section 29, the State Government could have taken recourse thereto only in relation to a forest or a waste land or a land which was the property of the Government. According to the Petitioner, the land had already been settled as a raiyati land of the Society and therefore, the provisions of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act declaring the area to be a protected forest could not have been applied.

7. Inspite of such claims being put forward, the same were not entertained as a result whereof the Society filed Title Suit No. 117 of 1957 claiming declaration of raiyati rights over the lands in question as also a declaration that the State of Bihar had no right to illegally demarcate the said lands in terms of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. In the said Suit, the State of Bihar appeared, contested and filed a Written Statement wherein they inter alia contended that the suit was not maintainable and whatever right or title the settlee had acquired, became superseded and lost by reason of the provisions of the Bihar Protected Forest Act, 1957. They further claim


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top