The court upheld the classification of land as forest under the Indian Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, requiring prior approval for non-forest use, thus validating the order to register FIR against the petitioners.

Order on Board

28/01/2025

1. In these two petitions, the facts and issue involved are common, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. In these petitions, the petitioners have sought relief(s) to restrain the respondents from registering criminal cases against the petitioners and to quash the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by respondents No. 2/Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj.

3. The facts of the case are as under:-

The petitioners-Vijay Narayan Gupta and Smt. Indri Devi purchased land bearing Survey Nos. 796/2 and 810/1 (Old Survey No. 439/1) admeasuring 0.210 hectares situated at Balrampur from one Ashok Kumar Gupta through a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1989, their names were entered in the revenue records and they were in possession of the said land. On 12.12.2013, petitioner No. 2 – Indri Devi died and the name of Ramnarayan Gupta was entered in the revenue records.In WPC No. 1345/2019, the petitioner namely Amirchand Gupta purchased Survey No. 810/1154 admeasuring 202 sq.mt. In consideration of Rs.87,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 19.11.2003. Survey No. 810/1154 is part of Survey No. 810/1 which was purchased by Vijay Narayan Gupta and Smt. Indri Devi Gupta. The name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records and he constructed a house over it.

On 18.09.2019, one Ramjanam Jaiswal made a complaint against Ashok Kumar Gupta to the effect that the lease of Survey Nos. 810/1 and 796/2 was wrongly granted in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta. In complaint, it was also stated that Ashok Kumar Gupta by playing fraud got mutated his name in the revenue records.

Vijay Narayan Gupta alienated the property in part to many persons and they raised construction over the purchased plots. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are paying property tax. They have electricity and water connection in their own names and earlier a complaint was made and the same was rejected by the Collector Surguja vide order dated 10.08.2005.

It is further pleaded that on 22.05.2017 one Vinod Gupta filed a complaint before respondent No. 2 wherein a prayer was made to conduct a fresh inquiry and reconsider the order dated 10.08.2005. Respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 while passing the order impugned dated 06.02.2019 directed the Tehsildar, Balrampur and Sub Divisional Officer (R), District Balrampur- Ramanujganj to register F.I.R. as the subject land is forest land. It is also pleaded that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners by respondent No. 2 while passing the order dated 06.02.2019. In both petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.02.2019.

4. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the order impugned dated 06.02.2019 has been passed by respondent No. 2 without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing as no notice was served upon the petitioners. He would contend that respondent No. 2 is not a competent authority to review its earlier order without prior approval of the Superior Revenue Authority as the issue involved in the present case was already decided on 10.08.2005. Mr. Shrivastava would further argue that the authority or Court had already decided the issue, therefore, the subsequent order between the same parties pertaining to the same land was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. He would further contend that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers and they have already constructed their houses and they are in possession. Thus, he would pray to quash the order dated 06.02.2019. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment on the issue of res judicata passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Puri Investments Vs. Young Friends and Co. and Others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283; the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the matter of Radhika Vs. Unnikrishnan , 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 856; the