Madhya Pradesh High Court
Komal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330
1 WP-29140-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 29140 of 2021
KOMAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mudit Goswami - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Kushwah - Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 to
6/State.
Shri Himanshu Pathak - Advocate for respondents No.7 & 8.
Reserved on : 05/02/2026
Delivered on : 10/02/2026
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and final disposal with the consent of parties.
The instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) That, the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the petitioners representation regarding issuing the bhooswami right certificate/patta in the light of the provision as provided under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984.
(b) That, the respondent be restrain the respondent to Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330
2 WP-29140-2021 not to the dispossessed the petitioner from their land.
(c) That, any other just and proper relief, warranting under the facts and circumstances of the case be also given to the petitioners, including cost, in the ends of justice."
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being landless persons residing at Village Balrampur, Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha (M.P.) are in possession of forest land bearing survey No.P-361 area 1.664 hectares and they possessed the said land since last more than 40-42 years and cultivated the land which is their sole source of income. Initially, their rights over the land were admitted by the State authorities. However, now, the forest authorities are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioners and are trying to dispossess them. Therefore, the need to file the writ petition arose.
3. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in terms of Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Prayojan Ke Liye Upayog Ki Ja Rahi Dakhal Rahit Bhoomi Par Bhoomiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana (Vishesh Upabandh) Adhiniyam, 1984, the petitioners since have been cultivating the land in question even prior to the enforcement of Forest Conservation Act 1980. The petitioners are entitled for grant of patta rights over the lands in question under the State Act of 1984.
4. Learned counsel further places reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Banshi Ram Modi and Others 1985 AIR 814, to contend that if the petitioners have been permitted deforestation activity over the forest area prior to the Forest Conservation Act 1980 coming into force, then the said act would have no applicability on the rights Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 3 WP-29140-2021 of the petitioners as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that since the land in question is falling within the forest compartment of Village Balrampur, Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha, the said land along with other lands falling within the forest compartment have been allotted to respondent No.7 vide notification dated 20.01.2005 for reforestation activities and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any rights on the land in question and the State Act of 1984 would have no applicability on the land in question.
6. On the other hand, counsel appearing for respondents No.7 & 8, by referring to the return filed, submits that the contention as regards possession of the petitioners over the land in question is concerned, the same is seriously disputed. He submits that in fact after issuance of the notification dated 20.01.2005 by the State Government, all the encroachers have been dispossessed from the forest land. The reforestation exercise has been conducted on the said lands. The trees have been planted over the entire area for restoration of the forest and thereafter, vide transfer letter dated 30.08.2022 (Annexure-P/7/1), the land has been returned to the State Government. He also submits that the relief claimed by the petitioners is not admissible in law.
7. No other point has been pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 4 WP-29140-2021
9. Much stress has been laid by counsel appearing for the petitioners on the State Act of 1984 to contend that the petitioners are entitled for grant of rights over the land in question in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1984.
10.Section 3 of the Act of 1984 reads as under:
"3. Conferral of Bhoomiswami rights on agricultural labourer.-
(1) All unoccupied land in a village in possession of an agricultural labourer on the 2nd October 1984 shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, or the rules made thereunder shall be held by such person as from the said date in Bhoomiswami rights and he shall be a Bhoomiswami of the said land for all purposes of the Code and any other enactment for the time being in force:
Provided that such conferral of Bhoomiswami rights shall not be for such land exceeding two hectares:
Provided further that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of land-
(a) set apart under section 237 of the code for the following purposes:-
(i) for burial ground and cremation ground:
(ii) for gaothan;
(iii) for threshing floor;
(iv) for skinning ground;
(v) for bazar;
(vi) for public purpose such as schools, playgrounds, parks roads, lanes and drains;
[(vii) for the Pasture, grass, bir or fodder.]
(b) hold or reserved by the Central Government or the State Government for any specific purpose;
(c) which stands allotted to any person other than the person in possession of the land on the said date."
11.The bare perusal of second proviso to Section 3(1) r/w Clause (b) of the Section 3(1) of the Act of 1984, quoted hereinabove clearly indicates that nothing contained in this section is applicable in respect of land held or Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 5 WP-29140-2021 reserved by the Central Government or the State Government for any specific purpose. Admittedly, the land in question has been reserved for a specific purpose by the State Government, i.e., forest. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the claim made by the petitioners seeking rights under the State Act of 1984 on the land reserved by the State for forest purpose is wholly misconceived and baseless. In fact, no right is available to the petitioners under the said enactment in respect of the land in question.
12.Insofar as reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) is concerned, the aforesaid judgment came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of In Reference : Construction of Multi-storeyed Buildings in Forest Land, Maharashtra, wherein, the Apex Court vide its judgment dated 15.05.2025, in paragraphs 22 to 36 has held as under:
22. Having held that the subject land is a reserved Forest Land, the next question that would be required to be considered is as to whether the said land could have been allotted to the 'Chavan Family'.
23. It will be relevant to refer to Section 2 of the 1980 FC Act (as it originally exists, without amendment), which reads thus:
"2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.--
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing
--
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest"
in any law for the time being in force in that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 6 WP-29140-2021 State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government.
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation]. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for--
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants;
(b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating to or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and Construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes."
24. It would thus be clear that after the 1980 FC Act was brought into effect, no State Government or any other authority, unless there is prior approval by the Central Government, could have directed any Reserved Forest or any portion thereof to cease to be under the status of "reserved" or any forest land or any portion thereof to be used for any non-forest purposes. Nor could it have assigned any forest land or any portion thereof, by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization.
[emphasis supplied]
25. Reliance is placed by the RRCHS on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Banshi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 7 WP-29140-2021 Ram Modi and Others. The legal opinion given by the Deputy Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra also relies on the said judgment.
26. No doubt that in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra), this Court held that if an area had already been dug up and mining operations were carried on prior to coming into force of the 1980 FC Act, the State Government, for continuing the said lease for the purposes of mining, shall not need prior approval of the Central Government. It has been held that though it would be necessary to seek prior approval of the Central Government for starting mining operations on a virgin area, it would not be necessary to seek such approval for the purposes of carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or cleared before the commencement of the 1980 FC Act.
27. We find that even on facts, the said judgment would not be applicable. There is no order permitting the subject land to be used for non-forest purposes by any of the competent authorities. A reliance is sought to be placed on the letter issued by the Tehsildar, Taluka Haveli dated 13th May 1968, thereby informing the 'Chavan Family' about its decision to lease the subject land on "Eksali" basis for the year 1968-69. However, it is to be noted that the said lease was only for a period of one year. It is further to be noted that while accepting the said yearly lease, the 'Chavan Family' has given an undertaking that they will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession on 15.12.1967 (sic) i.e. prior to 1980.
28. In any case, nothing is placed on record to show that the land was permitted to be used by the State for any non-forest purposes prior to 1980. In any event, since the lease deed was valid only for one year, after the 1980 FC Act came into effect, in view of the restrictions imposed in clause (iii) of Section 2 of 29 the 1980 FC Act, the forest land could not have been assigned either by way of lease or any other mode to any private person unless there was prior approval of the Central Government.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 8 WP-29140-2021
29. In the case of Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Others, this Court while distinguishing the judgment in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) observed thus:
"15. The rules dealt with a situation prior to the coming into operation of 1980 Act. The "1980 Act" was an Act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menaces and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented. That was the primary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980. Therefore the concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals.
*** *** ***
18. The aforesaid observations have been set out in detail in order to understand the true ratio of the said decision in the background of the facts of that case. It is true that this Court held that if the permission had been granted before the coming into operation of the 1980 Act and the forest land has been broken up or cleared, clause (ii) of Section 2 of 1980 Act would not apply in such a case. But that decision was rendered in the background of the facts of that case. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. (See Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem) [(1901) AC 495] . But in view of the mandate of Article 141 that the ratio of the decision of this Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 9 WP-29140-2021 is a law of the land, Shri Gobind Das submitted that the ratio of a decision must be found out from finding out if the converse was not correct. But this Court, however, was cautious in expressing the reasons for the said decision in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643]. This Court observed in that decision that the result of taking the contrary view would be (SCC p. 648, para 10) that while the digging for purposes of winning mica can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on mining operations for winning mica. That would lead to an unreasonable result which would not in any way subserve the object of the Act. There was an existing lease where mining operation was being carried on and what was due by incorporation of a new term was that while mining operations were being carried on some other minerals were available, he was giving right to collect those. The new lease only permitted utilisation or collection of the said other minerals.
19. In the instant appeals the situation is entirely different. The appellants are asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to support the appellants' demands in these cases because the facts are entirely different here. The primary purpose of the Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act is to prevent further deforestation. The Central Government has not granted approval. If the State Government is of the opinion that it is not a case where the State Government should seek approval of the Central Government, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 10 WP-29140-2021 State Government cannot apparently seek such approval in a matter in respect of which, in our opinion, it has come to the conclusion that no renewal should be granted."
[Emphasis supplied]
30. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms held that the obligation to society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals. This Court held that in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) , there was an existing lease where mining operations were being carried on and what was due by incorporation of a new term was that while mining operations were being carried on some other minerals were available, he was given right to collect those. This Court observed that, however, in Ambica Quarry Works (supra), the situation is entirely different. The appellants therein were asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It would lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place. The Court, therefore, observed thus:
"20. In that view of the matter and the scheme of the Act, in our opinion, the respondents were right and the appellants were wrong. All interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act. This interpretation, in ouropinion, will subserve the predominant purpose of the Act."
[Emphasis supplied]
31. It is thus clear that this Court in unequivocal terms held that taking into consideration the Scheme of the Act, all interpretations which subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act i.e. the protection of the forests must be accepted.
[Emphasis supplied]
32. It would further be apposite to note that this Court in the present proceedings had an occasion to consider the judgments in the cases of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) and Ambica Quarry Works (supra). In the order dated 12th December 1996, this Court observed thus:
"4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 11 WP-29140-2021 provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] , Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] and recently in the order dated 29-11- 1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of 1995 decided on 29-11-1996] ). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643] has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 12 WP-29140-2021 mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.
5. We further direct as under:
I. General 1 . In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith."
[Emphasis supplied]
33. A perusal of the aforesaid observation of this Court in the present proceedings would reveal that this Court after considering the judgment in Banshi Ram Modi (supra) has in unequivocal terms held that in accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must be ceased immediately. It can thus clearly be seen that this Court has in unequivocal terms overruled what was held in Banshi Ram Modi (supra).
[Emphasis supplied]
34. It is thus amply clear that for permitting any non- forest activity within the area of any "forest", it was necessary to have prior approval of the Central Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 13 WP-29140-2021 Government. It has unequivocally been directed that all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. This Court specifically directed that running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and they are not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government.
35. It is further to be noted that this court in the case of Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala has observed thus:
"52. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms:(1)
.......................................... ...............
( 2 ) After the enforcement of the 1980 Act, neither the State Government nor any other authority can make an order or issue direction for dereservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or organisation not owned, managed or controlled by the Government except after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government.
(3) Conclusion D recorded by the High Court in para 103 of the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable and is set aside. (4) As and when the State Government decides to assign 10,000 ha of forest land to unauthorised occupants/encroachers, it shall do Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 14 WP-29140-2021 so only after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government and the latter shall take appropriate decision keeping in view the object of the 1980 Act and the guidelines framed for regularisation of encroachments on forest land."
[Emphasis supplied]
36. The legal position, therefore, has been clarified by this Court in the case of Nature Lovers Movement (supra) after considering the earlier judgments reiterating the position that neither the State Government nor any other authority can make an order or issue a direction for de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose. Neither is it permissible to assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or organization not owned, managed or controlled by the Government except after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government.
[Emphasis supplied]
13.The perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Construction of Multi-storeyed Buildings in Forest Land, Maharashtra (supra) indicates that after considering the judgment in the case o f Banshi Ram Modi (supra), Ambica Quarry Works (supra), and Nature Lovers Movement (supra), as per paragraph 33 of the said judgment, the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) stands overruled and it has been held that neither the State Government nor any other authority can make an order or issue a direction for de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non- forest purpose. Neither is it permissible to assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5330 15 WP-29140-2021 authority, corporation, agency or organization not owned, managed or controlled by the Government except after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government.
14.That apart, the specific averment made by respondent No.7 in its return that all encroachers from the land in question have been dispossessed and the trees have been planted on the lands in question in drive of reforestation stands unrebutted by the petitioners.
15.In view of the above consideration, no case for interference is made out. The petition, being bereft of merits, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
16.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Adnan Signature Not Verified Signed by: ADNAN HUSAIN ANSARI Signing time: 2/11/2026 10:05:47 AM