Skip to main content

Forest Land cannot be regularized by Revenue Authorities

In an appeal before this court filed by the plaintiff for declaration of permanent prohibitory injunction against the State Government from taking possession and in alternative for possession against the defendants of 'nautor land', a bench of Rajiv Sharma J, dismissed the appeal stating that the suit land could not be allotted in favour of the plaintiff as the land in question is a forest land which cannot be regularized by the revenue authorities.

In the instant case, the petitioner claimed himself to be in possession of suit land (nautor land) which was granted by way of regularization by Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. A review application was filed against this order which was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently the petitioner filed suit before the Civil Judge and then an appeal before the District Judge wherein an order was passed for the State Government to take possession of the remaining land as well. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before this Court.

The Court further made observation that there is a detailed procedure in which, the forest land has to be dealt with under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and with regard to the specific mandatory provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the Divisional Commissioner were competent to transfer or regularize the land in favour of the plaintiff. The Court also directed that the State Government has no authority to frame a policy of regularization of forest land against the very letter and spirit of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 as framing of such policies is against rule of law and might encourage dishonest persons to encroach upon the government land. [Thakur Dass v. State of H.P, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 883, decided on 23.2.2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/04/29/forest-land-cannot-be-regularized-by-revenue-authorities.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more