Jeet Singh Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—In a writ petition, Petitioner contended that a road is sought to be constructed on forest land. The Court disposed of the writ petition by permitting the Petitioner to make a representation with request to the concerned authority to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law after giving personal hearing to the Petitioner. In terms thereof, a representation was made, Petitioner was heard and thereafter, Executive Engineer passed an order dated 19.12.2008. In terms of the said order, the Executive Engineer has not found any merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the road in question is being proposed to be constructed on forest land. However, the order nowhere says who is or are owners of the land upon which the road is being proposed to be constructed. Counter affidavit followed by a supplementary affidavit have been filed wherein it has been accepted that part of the road in question as proposed falls within the forest. It has, however, not been indicated in those affidavits as to who owns the remaining land on which the road is proposed to be constructed. That being the situation, we set aside the order dated 19.12.2008 and direct the authority concerned to do afresh, what they were asked to do by the previous order of this Court. While doing so, measurement of the length and breadth of the road should be taken note of and it must be mentioned by referring to the revenue records as on whose land the road is being proposed to be constructed and whether there is authority to construct the same. While doing so it goes without saying that the Petitioner shall be heard afresh. This disposes of the writ petition.