Jawad Hussain Reshi & Ors. v. Estates Officer (DFO) Lidder Bijbehara

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE. JUDGMENT (Oral)

An overview of the background facts is that an ejectment order dated 18th November, 2025 came to be passed by the respondent-Estate Officer, District Forest Officer, Lidder Division, Bijbehara [“the Estate Officer”] under the provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 79-A of Indian Forest Act, 1927 [“Central Forest Act”], vide which, petitioners came to be directed to vacate forest land under their unauthorized occupation within ten days from the date of receipt of the order and restore the encroached forest area to its original condition. This order came to be assailed by them before J&K Special Tribunal [“the Appellate Court”] which, in terms of impugned order dated 01.12.2025, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction on the premise that order passed by the Estate Officer arouse out of Section 48-A of the J&K Forest Act, 1987 [“the State Forest Act”] and since said Act was no longer in vogue in the aftermath of the promulgation of the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019 [“J&K Re-organization Act”, for short] and Central Forest Act was made applicable to the UT of J&K, as such, despite availability of the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal Act, WP(C) No. 3098/2025 1988 [“J&K Special Tribunal Act”], appeal would lie before the Chief Conservator of Forests against an order passed by an authority under the Act.

Petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the learned Special Tribunal, primarily, on the ground that J&K Special Tribunal Act after its re-enactment has an overriding effect over the Acts and enactments, those are inconsistent with it.

Mr. Reshi learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is of the view that in terms of section (3) of J&K Special Tribunal Act, the power exercised by the Government or the Minister to hear, appeals, revisions, review petitions is vested with the Special Tribunal and since Chief Conservator of Forest is an instrumentality of the Government the power lies with the Special Tribunal to hear the appeal. He has relied upon Estate Officer, Jammu Forest Division, Jammu and ors. v. Mst. Jitto Devi and anr; AIR 2003 J&K 74, [“Jitto Devi”] in support of his contention.

Heard and considered the matter. The admitted legal position is that Sate Forest Act came to be repealed and Central Forest Act was made applicable to the UT of J&K with the promulgation of J&K Re-organization Act. The re-enactment of J&K Special Tribunal Act provides for the presentation of appeals, revision and review petitions, arising under a law made by Legislative Assembly of the UT. It is evident from the preamble of the Act, which, for the facility of reference, is extracted below: “An Act to provide for the presentation of appeals, revision and review petitions arising under any law made by the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory to Special Tribunal.”

Central Forest Act is not an enactment made by Legislative Assembly of the UT of J&K. It came to be extended to the UT of J&K and Ladakh vide Act No. 34 of 2019 by virtue of J&K Re-organization (Adoption of Central Laws) WP(C) No. 3098/2025 Order 2020. Since Central Forest Act is not an Act made by the Legislative Assembly of UT of J&K, J&K Special Tribunal Act, has no application to the present case. In this view of the matter, reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on Jitto Devi is clearly distinguishable, because in the said case, the power of the then State of J&K or the Minister, with respect to the appeal, revision or review, came to be discussed by this Court in view of Section (3) of J&K Special Tribunal Act. It was held that an appeal arising out of an order passed under Section 48-A of State Forest Act would lie before the Tribunal under J&K Special Tribunal Act. Since J&K Special Tribunal Act, even after his re-enactment, has no application to the laws made by the Central Government, an appeal against an order of a Forest Officer would lie to the Chief Conservator of Forest in terms of Sub Section (3) of Section 79-A of the Central Forest Act.

Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by J&K Special Tribunal Srinagar. Hence present petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed. However, petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the appellate Court under the Central Forest Act.

Disposed of along with connected CMs. (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 12.12.2025 Paramjeet Whether the Judgment is Reportable? Whether the Judgment is Speaking? Yes Yes WP(C) No. 3098/2025