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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
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