Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Laxmi Mahto @ Lakshmi Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under crpc 482 to quash proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. clearing protected forest for building alleged. (Para 5) |
| 3. notifications under s.30(b) lapse after 30 years. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. s.30(a),(c) notifications have no time limit. (Para 8) |
| 5. s.30(c) prohibits clearing indefinitely; no quashing. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. petition dismissed as without merit. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 2284 of 2018 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Giridih registered for the offences punishable under Section 33(1)(c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the order taking cognizance dated 16.05.2019 passed by the learned SDJM, Giridih in the said case and other reliefs.
3. At the outset, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press other reliefs and confine their prayer only to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking c
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....
Forest offence – There is no maximum time period fixed for notification under Section 30(c) of Indian Forest Act, 1927.
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 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....
Ownership rights do not permit construction on protected forest land, as established by relevant forest laws.
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....
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....
Point of Law : Illegal occupants/encroachers are not entitled to any prior notice.
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
