Allahabad High Court
Revati Raman And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 December, 2020
Bench: Anjani Kumar Mishra, Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 9 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22657 of 2020 Petitioner :- Revati Raman And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents Forest Authorities not to dispossess the petitioner over the Gata No.6260 Ka, area 14-0-0, Gata No.6260 Nya Area 6-16-0 and Gata No.6260 Gha area 1-10-0 situated in Village- Parsoi, Pargana-Agori, Tehsil-Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra till disposal of Suit No.1023 of 2008 filed on dated 30.12.2008 over which the petitioners are in possession since before Zamindari abolution seeking remedy under section 9/11 of Indian Forest Act pending before Forest Settlement Officer Obra Sonbhadra(Respondent No.2) to the writ petition.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed land plot till the disposal of suit of the petitioners pending before Respondent No.2."
It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that notification issued under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act did not come within the knowledge of the petitioners and therefore, the objection required to be filed under Section 6 could not be filed. However, the notification under Section 20 has not yet been issued, and therefore, the petitioners have already filed his objection under Section 9 of Indian Forest Act before the Forest Settlement Officer which is pending consideration. It has also submitted that petitioners are entitled to interim protection so that they cannot be dispossessed by the respondents in the meantime.
In our considered opinion, the prayer for injunction is entirely misconceived.
Since, it is admitted that no notification under Section 20 of the Act, specifying any area to be a reserve forest and the objection filed by the petitioners are still pending consideration, there cannot be any dispossession.
However, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that Forest Settlement Officer may deal with the objection filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same by reasoned and speaking order.
Order Date :- 15.12.2020 Pramod Tripathi