Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Elaborating the grounds, counsel for the petitioners would explain that the notification dated 24.05.1958 does not bring the lands in question within the category of protected forest. Referring to the section 29(1) of the Indian Forest Act, learned counsel explains that the provisions no doubt empower the State Government to declare by notification that the provisions of Chapter-IV of Act will be applicable to any forest or waste land, but the issuance of such notification is subject to a pre-condition that over such lands, the Government must have proprietary rights. Such notification in respect of lands of private individuals cannot be issued unless, the nature and extent of rights of the Government and that of the private persons over any or over the forest or waste land, have been inquired into and / or recorded by a survey of settlement. Learned counsel adds that even under exceptional circumstances, as laid down under section 29(3) of the Act, such notification issued in case of urgency, cannot abridge or adversely affect any existing right of the individual or communities over the lands notified. But till date, the nature and extent of rights of the Government and of private persons over the notified lands, has not been inquired into, nor has any survey as contemplated under section 29(3) of the Act, been carried out.

"After examining the documents which were part of the documents, we are satisfied that the lands in question were never declared to be forest land or private forest."

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. K.S.R. Swami reported in AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1847, learned counsel submits that while deciding the case under section 30 of the Bihar Protected Forest Act, which is parimateria to section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, the Apex Court had held that the notification issued under the proviso to section 30 of the Act is not intended to amount to a final constitution of private forest as a private protected forest and the notification under the proviso is to be made only pending the said inquiries, procedures and appeals.

8. Per contra, the stand taken by the opposite party namely, the state Government and the Forest Officials is as follows:

The notification dated 24.05.1958 was issued by the Government of Bihar under proviso to Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act. After issuance of the notification, the Forest Settlement Officer had demarcated the different plots of the notified land and had also prepared a detailed map of the different plots of Mouza Bhagaband. Pursuant to the notification, lands under the said notification, having been declared as a "Protected Forest". A general prohibition is contained in the notification against private individuals and any violation of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act is punishable under section 33 of the Act which has now been made a non-bailable and cognizable offence. The employees of the petitioners' company were found carrying non-forest activity such as levelling and digging forest land and encroaching upon the forest land by way of construction work. Such non-forest activities were found to be carried on lands in plot no. 1120, 1120, 1329, 1428 and other plots of Mouza Bhagaband and such activities were being carried at the behest of the petitioners on behalf of the petitioners company. Learned counsel adds that the word "forest" as explained by the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 202 of 1995 and as defined under section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, includes any area recorded as "forest" in the Government records irrespective of the ownership. The same definition of forest would apply in the context of the Indian Forest Act also. The Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest vide its Circular dated 17.02.2005 (Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit) had declared that the legal status of any land declared as forest or jungle jhar in Revenue Records, cannot be changed without prior approval of the Central Government as per the provisions of the Forest Conversation Act, 1980.
iii. The petitioners company M/s Electro Steels Limited claims to have acquired the lands from the settlees by virtue of separate sale deeds executed in its favour on different dates.
iv. Pursuant to the Government notification of 1958 when the Forest Department intended to take over the lands, some of the settled raiyats objected by filing title suits before the Civil Court. Two such suits vide Title Suit No. 26 of 1989 and Title Suit No. 25 of 1996 were filed. The Forest Department contested both the suits on the common ground that the suit lands were notified and declared as Protected Forest by virtue of the notification issued by the State of Bihar in 1958 and therefore, the plaintiffs in the suits have no right, title and interest over the lands. Both the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Forest Department. The findings recorded by the court of Sub Judge in Title Suit No. 26 of 1989, was that the 1958 notification of the State Government even if issued under section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act, would not extinguish the rights of the raiyats, until the entire procedures as contemplated under the Act for the purposes of acquisition and converting the land into forest land, is not completed. Such findings was upheld even by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed before it. Against the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs in title Suit No. 25 of 1996, the defendant Forest Department had preferred an appeal which is presently pending. v. While considering an identical issue contested by the Forest Department on the basis of the notification issued under section 30 of the Bihar Protected Forest Act which is parameteria of section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, the Supreme Court has held that the notification even if issued under the proviso to the Section, is not intended to amount to a final constitution of private protected forest and the notification is to be made only pending the required inquires, procedures and appeals.