The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2820 of 2017 1. Rama Shankar Singh @ R.S. Singh, son of late Ram Vilas Singh, resident of 124, Cooperative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S., Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro 2. Dr. C.P. Pandey @ Chandra Prakash Pandey, son of S.K. Pandey, r/o Plot No. 170, Lohanchal, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro, Jharkhand 3. Vijay Shankar Tiwari @ V.S. Tiwary, son of Shri Boodnath Tiwari, resident of C/o Electrosteel Steels Limited, P.O.-Jogidih, P.S.- Siyaljori, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand 4. Vinod Kr. Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh, son of Shri Abhimanu Singh, resident of Siyaljori, P.O.-Jogidih, P.S.-Siyaljori, Dist.-Bokaro .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Officer, Bokaro Division, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, Dist.-Bokaro 3. Ranger, Chas Forest Division, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, Dist.-Bokaro, Jharkhand 4. Forester, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro, Chas, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, Dist.-Bokaro …. Opp. Parties P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umang Kejriwal & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in Cr.M.P. No. 1069 of 2012 and allied cases dated 02.08.2012, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the said cases in which forest case being B.F. Case No. 1 and 23 of 2011, B.F. Case No. 2, 3, 4 of 2012 in respect of plot nos. 1120 and 1105 and others plots have been instituted with the allegation that the same have been encroached by constructing boundary wall over the same, the coordinate Bench quashed the said criminal proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of a Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 6 coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Premashish Mishra and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. along with analogous cases in Cr.M.P. No.917 of 2010 and analogous cases and submitted that in that case also several B.F cases were instituted against the employees of Electro Steel Integrated Limited which has been renamed as M/s. Electro Steel Steels Limited; alleging encroachment over the land inter alia of plot no. 1120 and the coordinate Bench vide the judgment dated 11.04.2012 relying upon the judgment of other Benches in Cr.M.P. No. 1653 of 2009 and analogous cases set aside the orders, by which cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under Section 33 (c) and 63 of Indian Forest Act. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that the order taking cognizance is perfectly legal and valid and the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is next submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that from bare perusal of the complaint prima facie the offence in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate is made out and there is no rhyme or reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that no fresh document is permissible to be filed for the first time in quashing application and provision of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 prohibits use of forest land for any purposes Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 7 other than the forest. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that earlier also on the same allegation of encroachment over plot no. 1120 and 1105 various forest cases alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1989 and also Section 2 of Forest Conservation Act was instituted; as is evident from the order passed by the coordinate Benches of this Court dated 02.08.2018 in Cr.M.P. No. 1069 of 2012 and analogous cases but the same has been quashed by the coordinate Bench on the ground that the process of notification as claimed to have been issued under Section 29 (3) of Indian Forest Act had never been completed and parties have been exercising their respective rights, titles and possession over the lands on the basis of registered sale deeds executed by raiyats in whose favour decree for declaration of right and title has been passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and though the order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 9884- 9887 of 2010, the special leave petition was dismissed. It is evident from the orders passed by the coordinate Benches in connection with the similar forest cases instituted against the employees of the same company Electro Steel Steels Limited that the raiyats filed Title Suit No. 25 of 1996 and 26 of 1989 against the forest department and the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar and it was held that the process of Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 8 notification as contemplated under Section 29 (3) of Indian Forest Act was never got completed and thereby purported notification will never assume the characteristics of the notification as contemplated under Section 29 (3) of Indian Forest Act and thereby it will not extinguish the rights of the raiyats and as such any act/acts done by raiyats or successors in interest; in exercise of their rights over the land which was never found to be the land of protected forest would never entail the person with criminal liability. 9. Under such circumstances of this case as the petitioners being employees of Electro Steel Steels Limited are exercising the rights of the company derived from the raiyats over land in question and there is serious dispute with respect to right, title and interest over the land which was still sub judice and both the parties are claiming their right and title. Under these situations, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with C3 (Forest) Case No. 20 of 2014 including the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with C3 (Forest) Case No. 20 of 2014 including the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is quashed and set aside. Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 9 11.
Arguments
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. : Mr. Azeemuddin, Advocate ….. Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 1 By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioners in connection with C3 (Forest) Case No. 20 of 2014 including the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1989 against the petitioners and all proceedings subsequent thereto. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 being the Director, petitioner no.2 being the D.G.M. (Administration), petitioner no.3 being the Security Head and petitioner no.4 being the officer of Electro Steel Steels Limited at 03:30 pm on 16.10.2014 were instrumental in leveling the forest plot no.1105 and 1120 by dumping soil over the same with a Hywa vehicle and were unloading plates made up of cement concrete, illegally and were fencing the case land with an intention to illegally bound the said forest land. 4. On the basis of the complaint, a complaint case was registered and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1957 as amended by Bihar Amendment Act, 1989. Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 2 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation against the petitioners are false and no forest produce has claimed to have been seized by the officer of the forest department who has submitted the offence report. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 29 (1) of the Forest Act provides that notification under the said section can be made by the State Government to declare the provision of Chapter IV of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 applicable to any forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserved forest but which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which the Government is entitled to. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in question bearing plot nos. 1105 and 1120 has been purchased by the employer company of the petitioners and they are the raiyati cultivable land and the lands cannot be declared as protected forest under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in respect of the plots in question and adjacent plots, 10 numbers of encroachment cases under BPLE Act and 43 numbers of forest cases have been initiated, the details of which has been mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of this criminal miscellaneous petition and many of them have been quashed. Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench in the case of R.S. Singh @ Rama Shankar Singh (petitioner no.1 herein) & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009 and allied cases, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 3 coordinate Bench vide judgment dated 31.07.2010 quashed the entire criminal proceeding and the order taking cognizance dated 09.11.2009 in BP Case Nos. 21 of 2009, 20 of 2009, 19 of 2009 and 22 of 2009 and though the State of Jharkhand filed Special Leave to Appeal No. 9884-9887 of 2010 against the said common judgment dated 31.07.2010 in Cr.M.P. No. 1631 of 2009 and analogous cases but the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the special leave petition vide order dated 25.01.2011. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Sub-Judge-II, Bokaro vide the judgment dated 29.05.2007 in Title Suit No. 25 of 1996 has held that in absence of any enquiry being conducted pursuant to the notification dated 24.05.1958, the claim of the forest department that the lands were declared protected forest was a myth. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that plot no. 1120 in khata no. 58 in village-Bhagaband was involved in the said Title Suit No. 25 of 1996 and the learned Sub-Judge-II, Bokaro vide issue no. (vi) held that in absence of enquiry the entire land of the suit plots was not declared protected forest and therefore granted decree for the area involved in the suit, a copy of which judgment ; has been kept at Annexure-4 of this criminal miscellaneous petition and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Hari Pada Mahatha and Ors. and the D.F.O. Forest and others were the defendants of the said suit and the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar was also the defendant no.1 of the said suit and the appeal filed by the D.F.O., Bokaro is still pending. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the claim of the forest Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 4 department based on the very said notification dated 24.05.1958 had come under challenge, including Title Suit No. 26 of 1989 in respect of the other lands in the vicinity and in all these cases it was held that in absence of any enquiry being held no right of the individuals was abridged rather they remained protected and the claim of the forest department that these lands were declared protected forest by mere issue of notification was rejected and the said finding was upheld up to the Supreme Court of India; by which in the common order passed in Civil Appeal No. 5471 of 1999 with other civil appeals; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dismissed the civil appeals and held that the land were neither declared private protected forest nor protected forest. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that plot no. 1120 and 1105 were purchased by M/s Electro Steel Steels Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 of which the petitioners are the employees and the ancestors of the vendors had right, title, interest and possession to the land over plot no. 1120 with occupancy right since the year 1835 and the same stood confirmed vide order dated 20.08.1912 in Title Suit No. 257 of 1912 and the same was affirmed vide order dated 15.12.1913 in Title Appeal No. 49 of 1912 and yet again held in their favour vide order dated 20.05.1927 in Title Suit No.630 of 1925 and affirmed vide order dated 30.01.1929 in Title Appeal No. 171 of 1927/28 where under, the ancestors of the vendors have been identified as cultivators of the land of Mathadih Chak, Bhagaband with Marousi, Mukrrari, Jalsasan (Korkar) right, the photocopy of the certified copy of the order dated 30.01.1929 is Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 5 annexed as annexure-7 of this petition. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that with reference to plot no. 1105 the same was settled to the ancestors of the vendors by registered patta in the year 1937 and as such the ancestors had valid right, title and possession to the same with occupancy right at the time of purchase. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the rightful possession of the ancestors/vendors was also affirmed by HM, Dhanbad vide order dated 26.02.1960 in K.P. Case No. 122 of 1959 with reference to the decrees of Title Suit No. 1925 of 1927. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that claim of the opposite party with respect to the lands notified under the proviso clause of Section 29 (3), vide notification dated 24.05.1958 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 3362 of 2009 and W.P. (C) No. 2515 of 2009; while quashing the entire ten numbers of BPLE proceedings initiated by the opposite parties. 6.
Decision
In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 30th July, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Cr.M.P. No.2820 of 2017 10