I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE CHI EF JUSTI CE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTI CE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition (M/B) No.350 of 2025

16 June, 2025 Mohammad Baseer --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.277 of 2025 Mohammad Shafi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.278 of 2025 Mohammad Safi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.279 of 2025 Gulam Rasool --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.280 of 2025 Abdul Rahman --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.288 of 2025 Mohammad Fareed --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.289 of 2025 Mohammad Baseer --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.354 of 2025 Mohammad Rafi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Ms. Tanupriya Joshi, learned for the petitioners.

Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. along with Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT : (per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned C.S.C. for the State.

2. In all the writ petitions, similar rights are claimed but in different parcels of land in the same area. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Van Gujjar and a member of a nomadic forest-dwelling community with roots tracing back to the ancient times of the Puranas; that, he has been living in the land in question since the time of his ancestors and their residence in that place is traceable to 1929 at least. That, they have been using the land for grazing their buffaloes and cattle. That, on the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, they had made applications and the said applications have been registered in form B and C. That thereafter the Gram Sabha caused the proceedings on the applications made by the petitioners.

4. The Act of 2006 stipulates the consideration of the application in a particular manner i.e. Rule 4 mandates certain action by the Gram Sabha in the form of a resolution on the forest rights claimed by the applicant/interested person and forward the same to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) formed under the Rules. The SDLC, in turn, headed by Forest Officer of a Sub Division and an Officer of the equivalent rank and other members of the committee are required to examine the veracity of the claims, examine the correctness of the resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha and, thereafter, prepare Block or Tehsil wise draft record of proposed reconciliation of the Government records and forward the same to the District Level Committee constituted under Rule 7. The DLC is consisting of D.M. as the Chairperson and includes the DFO as a member would thereafter consider the claim under Rule 8 (c) and grant approval or reject the same.

5. Despite the specific role assigned to the District Level Committee and the DFO, being a member of the said District Level Committee, in the instructions forwarded to the C.S.C., the DFO has thrown up his hands and has stated that as the functions are carried out by the Committee, he is not aware as to whether any application is made or not. This attitude of the officer towards the Court cannot be appreciated. Being the District Level Officer and the Custodian of all the records at the District Level, a simple inquiry with the concerned section would have revealed as to whether any application is pending or not.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner is claiming a right under an application said to have be