Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
R.S.Singh @ Rama Shankar Singh & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 31 July, 2010 cites

Brajesh Kumar Ray And Anr., Birendra ... vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 16 February, 2005

11. The same issue, as involved in the present cases raised by the Forest Department on the basis of the State Government Notification of 1958, was considered by a Bench of this court in the case of Brajesh Kumar Ray vs. State of Jharkhand & another [ 2005 (3) JCR 464 (Jhr.). The petitioner Brajesh Kumar Ray challenged the order of cognizance of the offences under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on the basis of the prosecution report filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro. The stand taken by the Forest Department was that the lands over which the petitioner Brajesh Kumar Ray and others had encroached upon, were forest lands and waste lands which were declared as such under the State Government Notification of 1958. The writ petitioner protested the claim of the Forest Department on the ground that the lands were 8 purchased from the original occupancy raiyats under registered sale deeds and that, notwithstanding the 1958 notification of the State Government, issued under section 29 (3) of the Indian Forest Act, raiyati rights of the raiyat, was not extinguished. The writ petitioner had also taken support of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the raiyats in Title Suit No. 7 of 1997 since by the decree, the court had declared that the occupancy rights of the raiyats over the suit lands, was not extinguished merely by the 1958 notification issued by the State Government under section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 35 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

State Of Bihar vs Lt. Col. K. S. R. Swami on 22 September, 1961

Arguing further, learned counsel submits that on the basis of the same notification dated 24.05.1958, the State Government had initiated proceedings under the Public Land Encroachment Act against the company as well as the petitioners seeking their ejectment from the land covered under the notification. Such proceeding was challenged by the company in a writ application vide W.P.(C) No. 3362 of 2009. The State Government offered stiff contest in the writ application taking the same stand that the 1958 notification is binding upon the company and that the land referred to in the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 25 of 1996 and Title Suit No. 26 of 1996, do not cover the entire area and the said judgment was of no help to the writ petitioners. Despite such objection of the State Government, this court allowed the writ application holding inter-alia that in view of the disputed title, summary proceeding under the Public Land Encroachment Act, cannot be allowed to be continued and had quashed the proceeding initiated against the company and the petitioners under the Act. Learned counsel adds that all the present criminal cases are based on the same offence reports which were matters in the Public Land Encroachment proceedings and this High Court having already held that the company cannot be said to be encroacher over the forest land. The criminal prosecution 5 against the petitioners cannot legally be initiated for any alleged offence under the Indian Forest Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1