Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6052
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
B. P. DESHPANDE, J
MANUEL PHILIP MASCARENHAS – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE UNDER THE SCHEDULED TRIBES THR CHAIRMAN AND 2 ORS – Respondent
WP 859 / 2023
Mr A. D. Bhobe and Ms S. Shaikh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr S. Samant, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent no.1. Ms M. Correia, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3. Mr P. Faldessai, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr S. P. Munj, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent no.1.
The court ruled that failure to provide a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice, necessitating remand for proper consideration of claims under the Forest Rights Act.
Headnote:(A) Forest Rights Act, 2006 - Section 6 - Natural Justice - Petitioners claimed land rights under the Forest Rights Act, but their applications were rejected without proper opportunity to counter evidence presented by the Goa Forest Development Corporation - The District Level Committee failed to provide an effective hearing as mandated by the Apex Court. (Paras 3, 15, 17)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The committee must ensure that all parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case and evidence before making a decision. (Paras 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed claims for land under the Forest Rights Act, but their applications were rejected based on a lease document presented by the Goa Forest Development Corporation, which they were not allowed to counter. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed due to the lack of effective hearing provided to the petitioners, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. (Paras 17, 19)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were given a fair opportunity to counter the evidence against their claim and whether the District Level Committee followed the required procedures. (Paras 15, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, stating that the committee must provide an effective hearing and allow the petitioners to present their evidence. (Paras 16, 17)
Result: Impugned order quashed; matter remanded for fresh consideration.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Matters are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with consent.
2. Heard Mr Bhobe, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Maria Correia, learned Addl. Govt Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent no.1.
3. In all these petitions, petitioners filed their claim in the year 2016 itself claiming that they are entitled to the land as per Forest Right Act, 2006 and Rules framed thereunder. Their applications were routed through village panchayat and thereafter Sub Divisional Level Committee and finally it was placed before the District Level Committee. In between, a spot verification report was carried out. Matter was posted for hearing on 5.8.2022, however Sub Divisional Level Committee produced one documents stating that the area claimed by the petitioner is already leased out to Goa Forest Development Corporation from the year 1974-77 and said Corporation is in possession of the land as well as trees i.e cashew trees and rubber plantation. District Level Committee disposed of said applications filed by the petitioners without giving them further opportunity to counter such a document.
4. Mr Bhobe appearing for the petitioners would submit that document produced on record shows that lease was executed in the year 1997 in favour of the Corporation and not in the year 1974 as claimed. He submits that the document was not furnished to the petitioners prior to the date of hearing and no opportunity was given to them to either counter such document or to produce further evidence. He therefore submits that findings based only on such document are perverse and hit by principles of natural justice. Mr Bhobe would submit that this is a fit case for remand to the concerned authority as inquiry was not conducted as required under the Rules.
5. Ms Correia, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that though applications were filed by the petitioners in the year 2016 Sub Divisional Level Committee did not recommend allotment of such land to the petitioners. She would submit that since sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to produce their document and impugned order also clearly show that their claim was rejected on other grounds and not only on the ground that the document produced by Sub Committee showing the lease granted in favour of the Corporation. She would submit that the inquiry was properly conducted and no interference is warranted.
6. Rival contentions fall for determination.
7. Claim of the petitioners is that in view of the specific provisions under Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 they are entitled to hold land. Section 6 deals with Authorities to vest forest rights in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and procedure thereof. It provides that the Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within the local limits of its jurisdiction under said Act by receiving claims, consolidating and verifying them and preparing a map delineating the area of each recommended claim in such manner as may be prescribed for exercise of such rights and the Gram Sabha shall, then, pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.
8. Provisions of Section 6 further show that the State Government shall constitute a Sub-Divisional Level Committee to examine the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha and prepare the record of forest rights and forward it through the Sub-Divisional Officer to the District Level Committee for a final decision.
9. In the present matter applications filed by the petitioners were supported by the resolution passed by Gram Sabha
