Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
P.N. Pathak @ Pradip Narayan Pathak & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. Nos. 1751, 2829, 3898 of 2022
Decided On : 10-10-2023
Indian Forest Act - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Sections 33 and 63(c) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 - The court discussed the nature of Reserved and Protected Forest, the enquiry contemplated for their notification, and the distinction between the two categories of forest. It emphasized that the notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act was final and did not require a separate final notification, rejecting the argument that the notification was not final due to lack of enquiry. The court also clarified the provisions of the Bihar Private Forest Act and their inapplicability to government land. It held that the claim of title over the protected forest land was not sustainable and quashed the criminal miscellaneous petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings related to encroachment of protected forest areas notified under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners claimed that the notification declaring the land as protected forest was not final due to lack of enquiry, and that they had acquired title over the land through registered sale deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act was final and did not require a separate final notification. It held that the claim of title over the protected forest land was not sustainable, as the land had been duly notified as protected forest area in 1958. The court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petitions and disposed of pending applications.
Issues: The central issue was whether the notification declaring the land as protected forest was final and whether the petitioners had acquired title over the land through registered sale deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the nature of Reserved and Protected Forest, the enquiry contemplated for their notification, and the distinction between the two categories of forest. It emphasized that the notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act was final and did not require a separate final notification. The court also explained the provisions of the Bihar Private Forest Act and their inapplicability to government land.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal miscellaneous petitions and held that the claim of title over the protected forest land was not sustainable.
ORDER :
All these criminal misc. petitions, raise same questions of fact and law, are being heard together and shall be disposed of by this common order.
1. Cr. M.P. No. 1751 of 2022 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 29.08.2019 passed in C.P. Case No. 555 of 2018 (Forest) whereby and whereunder, prima facie case has been found to be made out under Sections 33 and 63(c) of Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Cr. M.P. Nos. 2829 of 2022 and 3898 of 2022 have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 29.08.2019 passed in C.P. Case No. 553 of 2018 (Forest) whereby and whereunder, prima facie case has been found to be made out under Sections 33 and 63(c) of Indian Forest Act, 1927.
2. Can a cognizance be quashed in a case concerning protected forest notified under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, alleged to have been encroached and grabbed by private parties, claiming title over the said forest area, is the central question involved in these criminal miscellaneous petitions?
3. In Cr. M.P. Nos. 2829 of 2022 and 3898 of 2022 arises out of C.P. Case No. 553 of 2018 (Forest), offence report lodged by the forest guard is the basis of the forest cases. Cognizance has been taken on the prosecution report filed by the forest range officer. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the land appertaining to Plots Nos. 4836, 4837, 4839, 4840, 4856 and 4897 measuring 71.83 acres of Mouza Siyaljori, Thana No. 202 was declared protected forest vide Notification C/F-17014/58-1429R dated 24.05.1958. It is alleged that the petitioners/ accused persons had encroached the protected forest area and had constructed boundary wall and installed different units of Electro-steel Integrated Limited and Electro-steel Steels Limited.
4. Cr. M.P. No. 1751 of 2022 arises out of C.P. Case No. 555 of 2018 (Forest) the matter involves encroachment of the same company over Bandhdih Plot No. 1605 and Hutupathar Plot No. 1090 and 1092 by constructing road which is claimed to be protected forest area by the same notification.
CASE OF THE PETITIONERS
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification by which the plot of land is claimed to be protected forest was published on 24.05.1958 and the recital of the said notification reads as under :
The forest lands and waste lands comprised in this notification shall be called a “Protected forest”.
The nature and extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or over the forest land and wastelands comprised in this notification have not yet been enquired into and recorded as laid down in sub section (3) of section 29 of the said Act, but as the State Government thinks that such enquiry and record will occupy such length of time as in the meantime to endanger the rights of Government and as the enquiry and record of rights will hereafter be made this notification is issued subject to all existing rights of individuals or communities.”
6. By referring to the above notification, it is argued that this notification was not final and before the final notification, right of Govt. and of private persons was to be enquired into. Till date, no such enquiry has been conducted and no forest settlement officer was appointed by the State to hold such an enquiry. In the absence of such enquiry notification did not attain finality so as to affect the private right of the parties. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 requires the right of the local people to be enquired into.
7. Based on the same notification, similar allegation of 44
The notification under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act declaring land as protected forest is final and does not require a separate final notification. The provisions of the Bihar Private Forest A....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the continuation of a criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of the Court if no offence could be made out against the accu....
Notifications under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of Indian Forest Act have no 30-year expiry unlike Section 30(b); clearing protected forest for building violates ongoing prohibition under 30(c), preclud....
Merely possessing or occupying land does not constitute criminal trespass unless proven intent to insult, intimidate, or annoy is established; also, proper notification process for protected forests ....
The court quashed criminal proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, ruling that the land in question is raiyati land and not part of a protected forest, preventing abuse of process.
The absence of a notification under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act and the history of the land being decreed in favor of the petitioners were crucial in quashing the criminal proceedings.
Forest offence – There is no maximum time period fixed for notification under Section 30(c) of Indian Forest Act, 1927.
The mandatory nature of service of notice under sub-Section 3 of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and its significance in determining the classification of a land as a 'Private Forest' under....
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
