Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2025:CGHC:4896 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(C) No. 737of 2019 1. Vijay Narayan Gupta S/o- Shri Ramnarayan Gupta, Aged about 49 years, R/o- Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station & Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, and presently residing at Village & Post- Davara, Police Station- Pasta, Tehsil- Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 2. Indri Devi (Died) through- L.R.'s Ramnarayan Gupta, S/o Late Shri Ramdas Gupta, Aged 69 years, R/o- Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station & Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh, and presently residing at Village & Post- Davara, Police Station- Pasta, Tehsil- Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R.), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4. Tehsildar, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents And WP(C) No. 1345 of 2019 1. Smt. Manbarta Devi, Aged about 70 years, W/o- Shri Radheshyam Singh, R/o- Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station & Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504 and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority, WP(C) No. 749 of 1995 decided on 29-11-1996). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, (1985) 3 SCC 643 has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.” 10. In the matter of B.S. Sandhu Vs. Government of India and Others, (2014) 12 SCC 172, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again considered the meaning of “forest” as defined under Section 2 of the Act 1980 and quoted the judgment passed in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that in forest areas, non-forest activities could not be allowed without the prior permission of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act 1980. 11. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, has placed 9 reliance on the judgments rendered in Puri Investments (supra); Radhika (supra); Kumari Laxmi (supra) and Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited (supra), where it is held that the issue already decided cannot be re-agitated or re-examined by the authority or Court. In the present case, the earlier issue of the grant of the lease was decided by the Additional Collector, Surguja wherein it was found that the lease was granted to one Ashok Kumar Gupta in accordance with the law and he had the right to alienate the property after 13-14 years. Vide order dated 06.02.2019, the Collector, Balrampur- Ramanujganj has recorded a categorical finding that the subject land is forest land (chote jhaad ka jungle) and without prior permission of the Central Government, the lease could have not been granted in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta or anyone. The order sheet of the Collector/respondent No. 2 would show that notices were issued to the respondents and one Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate appeared on their behalf, therefore, the contention made by Mr. Pawan Shrivastava appears to be incorrect. 12. Taking into consideration the definition of ‘forest’ defined under Section 2 of the Act 1980, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of B.S. Sandhu (supra) and T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad (supra) and the facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 13. Consequently, both petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No Costs. vatti Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Arguments
2. Smt. Sushila Yadav, Aged about 50 years, W/o- Shr Gopal Yadav, R/o- Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station & Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 3. Yogendra Prasad @ Pappu, Aged about years, S/o- Shri Ramnarayan Prasad, R/o- Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station & Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4. Sunil Gupta, Aged about 50 years, S/o- Shr Ramnarayan, R/o- Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station & Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 2 5. Smt. Mamta Singh, Aged about 55 years, W/o- Shri Kashinath Singh, R/o- Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station & Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 6. Amirchand Gupta, Aged about 60 years, S/o- Late Shri Chaturi Sao, R/o- residing at Village & Post- Ramanujganj, Police Station and Tehsil- Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 7. Amit Singh, Aged about 40 years, S/o- Shri Sablayak Singh, R/o- Ward No. 15, Balrampur, Police Station & Tehsil- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Collector, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 3. Sub-Divisional Officer (R.), Ramanujganj, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4. Tehsildar, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners For Respondents/State : : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. In these two petitions, the facts and issue involved are common, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. In these petitions, the petitioners have sought relief(s) to restrain the respondents from registering criminal cases against the petitioners and to quash the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by respondents No. 2/Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj. 3. The facts of the case are as under:- The petitioners-Vijay Narayan Gupta and Smt. Indri Devi purchased land bearing Survey Nos. 796/2 and 810/1 (Old Survey No. 439/1) admeasuring 0.210 hectares situated at Balrampur from one Ashok Kumar Gupta through a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1989, 3 their names were entered in the revenue records and they were in possession of the said land. On 12.12.2013, petitioner No. 2 – Indri Devi died and the name of Ramnarayan Gupta was entered in the revenue records. In WPC No. 1345/2019, the petitioner namely Amirchand Gupta purchased Survey No. 810/1154 admeasuring 202 sq.mt. In consideration of Rs.87,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 19.11.2003. Survey No. 810/1154 is part of Survey No. 810/1 which was purchased by Vijay Narayan Gupta and Smt. Indri Devi Gupta. The name of the petitioner was entered in the revenue records and he constructed a house over it. On 18.09.2019, one Ramjanam Jaiswal made a complaint against Ashok Kumar Gupta to the effect that the lease of Survey Nos. 810/1 and 796/2 was wrongly granted in favour of Ashok Kumar Gupta. In complaint, it was also stated that Ashok Kumar Gupta by playing fraud got mutated his name in the revenue records. Vijay Narayan Gupta alienated the property in part to many persons and they raised construction over the purchased plots. It is also the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are paying property tax. They have electricity and water connection in their own names and earlier a complaint was made and the same was rejected by the Collector Surguja vide order dated 10.08.2005. It is further pleaded that on 22.05.2017 one Vinod Gupta filed a complaint before respondent No. 2 wherein a prayer was made to conduct a fresh inquiry and reconsider the order dated 10.08.2005. Respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 while passing the order impugned dated 06.02.2019 directed the 4 Tehsildar, Balrampur and Sub Divisional Officer (R), District Balrampur- Ramanujganj to register F.I.R. as the subject land is forest land. It is also pleaded that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners by respondent No. 2 while passing the order dated 06.02.2019. In both petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 06.02.2019. 4. Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would argue that the order impugned dated 06.02.2019 has been passed by respondent No. 2 without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing as no notice was served upon the petitioners. He would contend that respondent No. 2 is not a competent authority to review its earlier order without prior approval of the Superior Revenue Authority as the issue involved in the present case was already decided on 10.08.2005. Mr. Shrivastava would further argue that the authority or Court had already decided the issue, therefore, the subsequent order between the same parties pertaining to the same land was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. He would further contend that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers and they have already constructed their houses and they are in possession. Thus, he would pray to quash the order dated 06.02.2019. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment on the issue of res judicata passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Puri Investments Vs. Young Friends and Co. and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 283; the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the matter of Radhika Vs. Unnikrishnan, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 856; the judgments passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the matters of Kumari Laxmi Vs. Rama Devi and Others, 2023 SCC 5 OnLine Del 6731 and Black Diamond Trackparts Private Limited and Others Vs. Black Diamond Motors Private Limited, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 545. 5. On the other Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State would oppose and submit that in WPC No. 737/2019 the State/respondents have filed its return. He would contend that in WPC No. 1345/2019 the State would adopt the return filed in WPC No. 737/2019. He would further submit that the land bearing Survey Nos. 796/2 and 810/1 (Old Survey No. 493/1) admeasuring 0.210 hectares of land is forest land (chote jhaad ka jungle) and the same is evident from the revenue records of the years 1981-1985. He would also submit that earlier a complaint was made by Ramjanam Jaiswal against Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vijay Narayan Gupta and Smt. Indri Devi with regard to the grant of the lease. It was alleged that Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vijay Narayan Gupta and Indri Devi represented themselves as landless and moved an application for the grant of lease and later on, they alienated the subject property to many persons. He would also contend that the complaint so made by Ramjanam Jaiswal was rejected by the Additional Collector Surguja vide order dated 10.08.2005 and it was held that the lease was granted in the years 1975-1976 and after 13-14 years, part of the property was alienated to other persons and, therefore, there was no requirement to obtain permission of the prescribed authority. He would also contend that on 22.05.2017 one Vinod Gupta made a complaint. The Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj sought a report from the Tehsildar wherein it was informed that Survey No. 439/1 is a forest land and, therefore, the Collector passed the order for registration of the 6 F.I.R. He would state that the issue involved in the order impugned, and the allegations are entirely different, therefore, the doctrine of res judicata would not attract. He would refer to the provision of Section 2 of the Indian Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act 1980') which deals with ‘restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose’. He would further state that without prior approval of the Central Government, any reserved forest, forest land or any portion thereof cannot be used for non-forest purposes. He would also state that if any lease was granted to Ashok Kumar Gupta, it was contrary to provisions of Section 2 of the Act 1980. He would submit that both petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Section 2 of the Act 1980 reads as under:- “2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being is force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing,- (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; that any forest land or any portion thereof may be (ii) used for any non-forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government; (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. Explanation.- for the purpose of this section “non-forest purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for - 7 (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants. (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.” 8. The Collector Balrampur-Ramanujganj in its order dated 06.02.2019 has categorically recorded a finding that Survey No. 439/2 is recorded as chote jhaad ka jungle in the revenue records of the years 1981- 1982 to 1985-1986. In column No. 12, the name of Ashok S/o Mangli Sao is registered as encroacher. Respondent No. 2 held that the lease of forest land cannot be granted to anyone and thus, directed the Tehsildar Balrampur and Sub-Divisional Officer (R), Ramanujganj to register F.I.R. against encroachers and the government officials who were involved. 9. In the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has defined Section 2 of the Act 1980 which defines “forest”. According to provisions of Section 2 of the Act 1980, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted to check further deforestation and the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith and it would apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The relevant para- 4 is reproduced herein below:- “4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of 8