Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J
Gautam Kumar Mahatha, son of Shri Prabhakar Mahata – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Forest and Pollution Control Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide B.F. No.41 of 2012 involving the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act , 1927; ( though because of printing error, the same has been mentioned at several places in this Writ Petition (Cr.) as under Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code) and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act , 1980 (which has wrongly been printed at several places in this Writ Petition (Cr.) as Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Regulation, 1980).
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused persons, contrary to the prohibitions of Section 30 of the said Indian Forest Act , 1927 cleared the protected forest land and were constructing a house over the same but on seeing the forest officials they fled away. There is also allegation against the petitioner of contravening Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act , 1980 by using the protected forest land for non-forest purpose, like constructing a house the
Ownership rights do not permit construction on protected forest land, as established by relevant forest laws.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a land dispute involving a claim of being a bonafide purchaser, absence of objection from the relevant authority, and absence of re-notific....
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 court established that claims of ancestral ownership do not negate the legal status of land declared as reserve forest, allowing for prosecution of encroachers.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for complaints under the Forest Conservation Rules to be lodged by authorized personnel, and the limitation of vicarious liability ....
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the impact of the affirmed Title Suit in favor of the petitioners' vendor....
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....
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
