Forest Act, 1927: s. 4 – Declaration of reserved forest – Forest inhabitants – Right to be heard by Forest Officer – On facts, land in possession of the appellants-bhoomidars, declared as reserved forest – Initiation of eviction drive against the appellants – Forest Settlement Officer held that the appellant had a rightful claim over the said land – Writ petition by the Forest Department – Allowed by the High Court and directed eviction of the appellants – Review petition there against also dismissed – On appeal, held: Right of forest inhabitants to be heard on the claims by the Forest Officer is not restricted only to certain forest communities – Right to be heard, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority – Right to enjoy possession of any land notified u/s. 4 is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc – Right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities – Appellants are not from a backward community and nor do they claim to be so, thus, have right to be heard by the Forest Officer – Furthermore, the concurrent findings of the lower courts neither perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction – Re-appreciation of evidence done by the High Court while exercising its inherent powers u/Art. 226, bad in law and is liable to be struck down – Thus, the impugned order and judgment not liable to be sustained and is set aside – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226 .
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It must be noted that forest communities do not only consist of people from recognized Adivasi and other backward communities, but also other groups residing in the said land. These other groups, who do not get recognition under the law as a forest dwelling community due to several socio-political and economic reasons, are also an integral part of the said forest communities and are essential to their functioning. Further, there can also be several instances of people ancestrally being forest dwellers, however, due to lack of documentation, are not able to prove the same. [Para 20][1006-G; 1007-A]
1.2 The appellants are not from a backward community and nor do they claim to be so, however, the Banwasi judgment, if interpreted in a narrow manner only to benefit certain recognized forest communities, would cause a great deal of harm to multiple other communities. It must be noted that the Banwasi judgment only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if such authority rejects a claim, then the said claim cannot exist against the situate land. [Para 21][1007-B-C]
1.3 This right to be heard, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim. Further, the right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc. If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same. [Paras 22 and 23][1007-C-E]
1.4 The appellants before the impugned order passed by the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction, had two concurrent findings in their favour by way of decisions rendered by the lower courts. The appellants had proved their possession over the subject land by leading evidence, and the veracity of the same, by way of proper procedure, was tested by both the lower courts. The High Court, however, without evidence being led by the respondents, set aside the concurrent findings. [Para 25][1007-G-H]
1.5 The concurrent findings of the lower courts are neither perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction. In such a scenario, wherein neither of the conditions were satisfied, the High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence in writ jurisdiction and come to a different conclusion. [Para 29][1008-E]
1.6 The remedy granted under the Banwasi Sewa judgment is available to the appellants, and the reappreciation of evidence done by the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Article 226, is bad in law and is liable to be struck down. [Para 32][1009-B]
1.7 Since the dispute has been held in favour of the appellants, the contempt petitions are rendered infructuous. The impugned order and judgment passed by the High Court is not liable to be sustained and is set aside. The orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and Additional District Judge are confirmed. [Paras 33 and 34][1009-C-D]
Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh (1986)
4 SCC 753 : [1987] 1 SCR 336 – explained.
BK Muniraju Vs. State Of Karnataka (2008) 4 SCC
451 : [2008] 2 SCR 992; Krishnanand Vs. Director of Consolidation (2015) 1 SCC 553 : [2014] 11 SCR 1001 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.