IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Kailash Prasad Deo, J.
Charka Ganjhu and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, represented through the Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Change and ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 3310 of 2020
Decided On : 05-08-2022
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Bihar Land Reforms and Act, 1950 - Bihar Land Reforms Rule 1951 - Rule 7B, 71 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 29 (3) - Direction to release land - Possession of land - Claim over land - Petitioners have preferred writ petition for a direction upon respondents to release land of petitioners – Held, Even after passing of an order by Forest Settlement Officer in Case and same has also been communicated to Divisional Forest Officer, but State officials have not taken any step to assail same in appeal or revision - After 60 years, they are also not admitting their own documents and thus, this plea is not acceptable - Till date, this land does not belong to Forest Department, as such, Forest Department is hereby debarred from entry into aforesaid land until and unless declaration is sought from competent court of law - Court also directs State Government to look into such matters because this shows inefficiency of State Government and their officers in filing such frivolous counter-affidavits before this Court without annexing concerned documents and claiming land in such manner, accordingly, State is debarred from entry into 18 acres of land of plot until order is passed by competent authority - Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwary and learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has submitted, that petitioners have preferred this writ petition on 17.10.2020 for a direction upon the respondents to release the land of the petitioners measuring 18 acres of land of plot No.296 Village Banji, Thana No.159 of Mandu, the then District:- Hazaribag now Ramgarh, with boundary:-
| North | Parti, |
| South | Parti, |
| East | Parti & |
| West | Beni Ganjhu. |
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that land had been settled in favour of ancestors of the petitioners from Ramgarh Raj in the year 1941. Xerox copy of the hukumnama & Fard Amin report have been brought on record as Annexures 1 and 1/A to the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that on getting the said settlement from Ramgarh Raj the ancestors of the present petitioners have came in exclusive possession of the said land and paid rent to the Ramgarh Raj and accordingly the Ramgarh Raj issued rent receipt, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary have further submitted, that after vesting of the Jamindari, the State Authorities have also recognized the possession of ancestors of the petitioners and issued rent receipts in favour of them and even after their death in favour of the present petitioners, xerox copy of rent receipt have been brought on record as Annexure-3 series to the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that in the year 1960-62, some dispute has arisen due to the fact that the lands which are in exclusive possession of ancestors of the petitioners are being shown in the map of forest department, prepared in the year, 1961 and the forest officers on the basis of said map started laying claim over the said land, which is in exclusive possession of the ancestors of the petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, in view of the objection made by the Forest authorities, an application was filed by the ancestors of the petitioners before the Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh, for release of the aforesaid land from the forest area, in which the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O) was made party and the Divisional Forest Officer appeared and filed his reply.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that on the basis of application filed by ancestors of the petitioners, Case No.338 of 1962-63 was instituted and evidence on behalf of both the parties were taken by the Forest Settlement Officer and finally by the order dated 08.12.1962 the land measuring 18 acres of Khata No.1, plot No.296, Village -Banji, Thana No.159 of police station Mandu, District:-Hazaribag now Ramgarh has been released in favour of ancestors of these petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that this order was also forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, vide memo No.117 dated 08.12.1962 and no appeal or revision has been preferred against that said order in last 60 years, thus, order dated 08.12.1962 attains finality.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that petitioners have filed rejoinder on 27.07.2022 bringing on record, the information provided under Right to Information Act, 2005 by District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh vide Memo No.828 dated 20.11.2014, that 18 acres of land of Plot No.296 is raiyati
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 lack of jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities over forest land notified under Section-4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the vesting of ....
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....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.