Jharkhand High Court
Anup Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand on 1 February, 2012
Author: R.R.Prasad
Bench: R.R.Prasad
In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Cr.M.P.No.140 of 2011
Anup Kumar .......................................Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand...........................Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajan Raj
For the State :A.P.P
7/ 1.2.12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.
This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Forest Case No.255 of 2006, pending in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Giridih including the order dated 14.6.2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken for an offence punishable under Section 33(c) of the Indian Forest Act and also under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.
It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, a contractor when was found constructing road through certain part of the land which is part of the protected forest, offence report was submitted. Subsequently, upon submission of the prosecution report, cognizance of the offence was taken for the offence punishable under Section 33(c) of the Indian Forest Act and also under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. That order has been challenged.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, a contractor had been entrusted work by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department to construct road through the land which allegedly falls within forest area, but no offence is made out as the petitioner had been doing public work vide order of Executive Engineer, R.E.O,Giridih. In that event, if some damage has been caused to the forest land, it will not amount an offence under the Indian Forest Act, in view of the decision rendered in a case of Arun Kumar Agarwal vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. [2004(2) J.C.R 450 (Jhr)] .
In this regard it was further submitted that though the Forest Department has claimed the land as that of protected forest by virtue of a notification issued in the year 1954 but it lost force after expiry of 30 years. Thereafter no further notification has been made and as such, the land cannot be taken as that of the Forest land.
Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Jagdish Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand and others [2003 (2) J.C.R 525 (Jhr)].
A counter affidavit has been filed wherein statement has been made that the petitioner or the Engineer of the R.E.O had never taken any permission from the Central Government for construction of a road over the land passing through the forest area. However, no statement has been made in the context of the statement made in the petition that after expiry of 30 years, the land would be seizing as that of the forest land.
In the context of the submission made on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of the provision as contained in Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act which reads as follows:
" 30. Power to issue notification reserving trees, etc. - The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, ---
(a)..............................................................
(b) declare that any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed for such term, not exceeding thirty years, as the State Government thinks fit, and that the rights of private persons, if any, over such portion shall be suspended during such terms, provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the right suspended in the portion so closed; or (c )........................................................................
As per the provision as mentioned above, any declaration made by the Government for the land to be a protected forest shall expire after expiry of 30 years from the date of the issuance of the notification.
Similar question fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in a case of Janu Khan and others vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1960 Pat
213) where His Lordship observed as follows:
" Even if I take into consideration the notification referred to above, which is dated the 29th December, 1952, there had to be another notification under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed in that notification."
Same view was taken by this Court in a case of Jagdish Mehta vs.State of Jharkhand and others [2003(2) J.C.R 525 (Jhr)].
Here, in the instant case, statement has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the land through which road was being constructed had been declared as a forest land by virtue of a notification issued in the year 1954 but nothing is there to show that after expiry of 30 years, any further notification has been made in terms of Section 30 (b) of the Indian Forest Act. Under the situation, one is constrained to hold that the land through which road was being constructed can never be taken to be the forest land in absence of any other notification.
Under that situation, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner, even if road had been constructed over that land.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Forest Case No.255 of 2006 including the order taking cognizance of the offence dated 14.6.2006 is hereby quashed.
In the result, this application is allowed.
( R.R.Prasad, J.) ND/