Writ Petition No. 3232 of 1973 · Supreme Court · 2025

3. During the course of hearing, our attention is invited to a reply given by the Divisional Forest Officer, Tiger Reserve, Pilibhit in which 39560 trees are admitted to be standing over the land for the last more than 64 years or above. Such detail has been furnished in a RTI reply to the petitioner. A communication issued by the Conservator of Forest dated 22.4.2016 has also been relied upon in which the size of trees are determined for the purposes of payment of compensation. It is submitted that these documents have not been taken into consideration by the authorities for payment of compensation, and therefore the impugned decision cannot be sustained. The material aforesaid has been referred to in paras 52 to 54 of the writ petition, which are replied in para 19 to 21 of the counter affidavit. There is no specific denial of the reports of the authorities, which are referred to above.

4. We also find that there has been a long litigation in respect of the claim in question and previous petitions were also disposed of with a direction to the authorities to examine the matter. It is pursuant to this order that the impugned order has been passed.

5. The only reason on which petitioners' claim is rejected is that the details of trees have not been furnished, and therefore, petitioner's claim itself cannot be considered.

6. Once the forest authorities have submitted report and have quantified the number of trees standing on the plot in question and also determined the criteria on the basis of which the compensation was to be paid, we cannot approve of the order of Chief Conservator of Forest rejecting the petitioner's claim. There is an obvious non-consideration of material available on record. As such the impugned order passed by the Chief Conservator Officer cannot be sustained.

7. In the facts of the case, we permit the petitioners to approach the respondent no.3, annexing all relevant materials in support of their claim, alongwith a certified copy of this order. The petitioners will be at liberty to annex the RTI reply and also quantify the number of trees and other material to receive compensation. Such claim would be got examined by the respondent no.3, in accordance with law, by passing an appropriate order, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner's claim for compensation is accepted, the authorities shall release the amount found due and payable within a period of four weeks, thereafter.

8. With the above observations/directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Anil ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. During the course of hearing, our attention is invited to a reply given by the Divisional Forest Officer, Tiger Reserve, Pilibhit in which 39560 trees are admitted to be standing over the land for the last more than 64 years or above. Such detail has been furnished in a RTI reply to the petitioner. A communication issued by the Conservator of Forest dated 22.4.2016 has also been relied upon in which the size of trees are determined for the purposes of payment of compensation. It is submitted that these documents have not been taken into consideration by the authorities for payment of compensation, and therefore the impugned decision cannot be sustained. The material aforesaid has been referred to in paras 52 to 54 of the writ petition, which are replied in para 19 to 21 of the counter affidavit. There is no specific denial of the reports of the authorities, which are referred to above.

4. We also find that there has been a long litigation in respect of the claim in question and previous petitions were also disposed of with a direction to the authorities to examine the matter. It is pursuant to this order that the impugned order has been passed.

5. The only reason on which petitioners' claim is rejected is that the details of trees have not been furnished, and therefore, petitioner's claim itself cannot be considered.

6. Once the forest authorities have submitted report and have quantified the number of trees standing on the plot in question and also determined the criteria on the basis of which the compensation was to be paid, we cannot approve of the order of Chief Conservator of Forest rejecting the petitioner's claim. There is an obvious non-consideration of material available on record. As such the impugned order passed by the Chief Conservator Officer cannot be sustained.

7. In the facts of the case, we permit the petitioners to approach the respondent no.3, annexing all relevant materials in support of their claim, alongwith a certified copy of this order. The petitioners will be at liberty to annex the RTI reply and also quantify the number of trees and other material to receive compensation. Such claim would be got examined by the respondent no.3, in accordance with law, by passing an appropriate order, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner's claim for compensation is accepted, the authorities shall release the amount found due and payable within a period of four weeks, thereafter.

8. With the above observations/directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Anil ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad