Basdeo v. The State of Jharkhand

: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner (s) For the respondent(s) : Mr. Manzul Prasad, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Prasad Ram, Advocate. : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, AC to AAG-II ------ 10/27.06.2024: In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer; (i) For direction upon the respondents in the nature of certiorari and quash the order passed by the respondent No. 3 having its Gyaapank No. 3400 dated 24.9.2022 and the office order No. 156 dated 24.9.2022 (Annexure-11) whereby the petitioner's grievances upon the legally acquired land, dismissed and violated the provision of Section 14 under Bihar Private Protected Forest Act, 1946 along with Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1947 as well as Sections 4 and 6 and under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Respondent No. 3 has claimed in his order sheet at para 10, Sub-para (iii) that the owner of the said land is Rameshwar Lal Chhapariya while at the time of notification but the owner of the said land was Kamala Devi. Thus, the said order is absolute incorrect. The aforesaid order has been passed by the respondent No. 3 in compliance of order dated 19.7.2022 passed in WPC No. 653 of 2022 by Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand. (ii) For further direction upon the respondents in the nature of mandamus directing upon the respondents to produce the records at the time of acquiring the land from the owner (i.e. Kamala Devi). If the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Bihar Forest Act, 1947 is followed in compliance of the doctrine of natural justice. (iii) The petitioner further prays to hold and declare void the order passed in Memo No. 3400 dated 24.9.2022 as because the respondent No. 3 has admitted the aforesaid land registered and mutated. If it is illegal, he should have approached before the competent Civil Court for cancellation of mutation and obtaining possession thereof and not to take the law of the land in his hand as because the petitioner has been performing his agricultural activities on his land under Giridih District within Pariyana Mouza having its Khata No. 33, Plot No. 823, Total area 3 acres 57 decimals since more than 50 years continuously without any break and paying the rent thereof.

During course of argument, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land in question has been purchased by this petitioner's predecessors by virtue of registered sale deed in the year 1972, 1975 and 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that they are in possession of the property in question without there being any hindrance/objection of any of the parties including the State. Suddenly the impugned order was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, East Forest Zone, Giridih holding that the land belongs to the forest and the petitioner will not be allowed to make any construction over the said land. He submits that even the cultivation over the said land has been restrained. It is the case of the petitioner that by no stretch of imagination the land belongs to the Forest Department, as the same belongs to the erst while Jamindar and the Jamindar settled the same to the vendor of the petitioner. Thereafter this petitioner has purchased the said land by registered sale deed way back in the year 1972, 1975 and 1990. He further submits that the title of the property is in favour of the petitioner and the impugned order creates a cloud over the title of the petitioner.

Counsel for the State submits that the land in question is shown to be protected forest area and belongs to the forest department and the owner of the land has been recorded as State of Bihar in the records. He further submits that execution of the registered sale deed will not confer any title in favour of the petitioner or their vendor as the vendor of the petitioner did not have perfect title over the land, which they could have been conveyed by any deed.

Considering the submissions of the parties and the nature of dispute, I am of the opinion that the fundamental dispute is in respect of right, title, possession and interest over the land in question. If the petitioner is claiming right, title and interest over the land in question, which is being disputed by the Forest Department, the petitioner should approach the appropriate Civil Court having jurisdiction for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the land in question. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

2. Constitution, cannot declare right, title and interest of the petitioner over the land in question.