IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Gautam Kumar Mahatha, son of Shri Prabhakar Mahata - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Forest and Pollution Control Department and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (Cr.) No.115 of 2013
Decided On : 27-02-2025
(A) Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 33 - Forest Conservation Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Writ Petition for quashing criminal proceedings alleging unauthorized clearing of protected forest land for construction - The petitioner claimed ownership based on an earlier judgment; however, the court found that the land was declared protected forest by state notification. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Legal Principle - The right to control and manage land does not extend to construction on protected forest land. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of clearing protected forest land to construct a house, contrary to prohibitions under the Indian Forest Act and Forest Conservation Act. The petitioner argued ownership based on a 1956 judgment.
Findings of Court:
The court found the land to be protected forest and the allegations against the petitioner valid, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues were whether the land was forest land and the relevance of the earlier court judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prior judgment did not authorize construction on protected forest land, affirming the legality of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
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 thereon.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the place of occurrence land is not a forest land. It is next submitted that the ancestors of the petitioner filed Original Suit in the court of Munsif, Purulia vide Title Suit No.140 of 1954 and the same was disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 24.07.1956. The learned Munsif protected the right of the petitioner to control, manage and possess the disputed property which were trees and shrubs standing on several plots of land. It is next submitted that the place of occurrence land belongs to the Writ Petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.), be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent- State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) and submits that the said judgment in Title Suit No.140 of 1954, relates to the right of the petitioner to control, manage and possess the trees only and by no stretch of imagination; control, manage and possess the trees will include the construction of house inside the protected forest area; with cement and bricks. It is next submitted that thus, the said judgment of Munsif, Purulia is irrelevant so far as this case is concerned and there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 read with 3 A of the Forest Conservation Act , 1980. Learned counsel for the respondent- State draws the attention of this Court towards the order dated 16.06.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1232 of 1993 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi and submits that in para-7 of thereof, the copy of which is available at page-67, it has categorically been inter alia mentioned by the High Court that the plot No.15 of village- Bandhgora of Thana No.35, District- Dhanbad (now Bokaro) is protected forest by the State Forest Department vide Notification No.c/f-17014/58/1429 (R). So, in view of the subsequent notification, the said earlier judgment of the court of Munsif, Purulia in Title Suit No.140 of 1954, also has no relevance and as undisputedly, the place of occurrence land has been declared as protected forest land, the petitioner has no right to carry out any construction over the land inside the protected forest nor to use the land for any purpose other than the forest activity. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds that as undisputedly the place of occurrence land has been declared as forest land by the State Forest Department vide Notification No.c/f-17014/58/14
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....
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.