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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more