ORDER : 

Vivek Agarwal, J.

This Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005, is filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the order dated 27.04.2026, passed in Writ Petition No.50542 of 2025 (Maan Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others), on the ground that learned Single Judge while vacating the earlier stay order granted by a Coordinate Bench, has not taken into consideration vital facts which were necessary for adjudication of the writ petition.

2. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, for appellants submits that first bone of contention is that vide Annx.A/4 and Annx.A/5, there was a direction to constitute a committee for dealing with the rights of the forest dwellers/tribal community and before that committee could be constituted, order vacating stay has been passed.

3. It is also submitted that for three generations, petitioners/appellants have been living in that area and that area is specifically classified as "Chhote Jhad Ka Jangal", therefore, it is implicit that the State Government has accepted the petitioners/ appellants to be forest dwellers. It is also submitted that Section 2(c) and 2(o) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short), defines the 'Forest Dwellers'. Section 2(c) and 2(o) of the said Act reads as under:-

"(c) “forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes” means the members or community of the Scheduled Tribes who primarily reside in and who depend on the forests or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist communities;

(o) “other traditional forest dweller” means any member or community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs.

Explanation.–For the purpose of this clause, "generation" means a period comprising of twenty-five years;"

4. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, submits that though Section 2(o) of the Act covers even those persons who have been traditionally grazing their cattle on the forest land and even their resettlement is obligatory to be made. Thus, it is pointed out that unless and until such settlement is made, the interim order should be restored in favour of the petitioners and they be not disturbed.

5. It is also submitted by way of passing reference that land is going to be utilised for some 'Manas Bhawan', which has no right to utilise that land which belongs to forest dwellers.

6. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General, for the State, in his turn, draws attention of this Court to para 11 of the impugned order where the petitioners themselves argued that petitioners are tenant of one Shri Khurshid Ahmed, therefore, the Revenue Authorities or the Municipal Authorities cannot evict the petitioners. It is also submitted that in para 16, learned Single Judge has referred to the letter dated 05.01.2026, issued by the Conservator of Forest, which specifically speaks that Survey No.1413/1, is not a reserved or conserved forest land.

7. It is also submitted that admittedly a Civil Suit was filed by Shri Khurshid Ahmed for declaration of title at forest survey numbers including new Survey No.1413 measuring 103 acres, which was dismissed by the Civil Court. It is also submitted that this land situated at Shyamla Hills has been subject matter of litigation, inasmuch as, after dismissal of the Civil Suit, First Appeal No.395/1997, was filed before the High Court, which too was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus, it is submitted that in absence of any lease hold rights or another letter of allotment either in favour of Shri Khurshid Ahmed or in favour of the persons who are claiming through Shri Khurshid Ahmed, no equity is required to be balanced and no Fundamental Right of the petitioners is established.

8. Shri