Sohan Lal Mahto And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent-State.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the concerned respondents to disintegrate 6.11 acres of land situated in village-

Pundi, P.S. Mandu, P.S. No.116, Khata No.92, Plot No.1419 from the master map of Forest Department in compliance of order dated 22.11.1963

passed by Learned Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh in Case No.49/62-63. The further prayer in this writ petition is for grant of adequate

compensation to the petitioners for using the land for mining purposes without acquiring the same under the Land Acquisition Act.

Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands admeasuring an area of 6.11 acres situated in village-Pundi, P.S.-

Mandu, P.S. No.116, Khata No.92, Plot No. 1419 was settled in favour the petitioner’s Grand-Mother namely, Late Bajo Devi wife of Late Birju

Mahto by ex-landlord in the year 1935. He further submits that rents were paid to the then landlords regularly and after Bihar Land Reforms Act

having come into effect, the rents are regularly being paid to the Government. Learned counsel has vehemently relied on Annexure-1 which is the

order dated 22.11.1963 passed in Case No.49/62-63 and submits that the Forest Land Officer by order dated 22.11.1963 released the said land from

forest demarcation in favour of Bajo Devi. He further submits that Annexure-4 is a document of enquiry by the Circle Officer, Mandu dated

13.04.2010 which confirms that the lands were settled in favour of Late Bajo Devi. He further submits that by way of Annexure-5 the Additional

Collector has also confirmed the report of Circle Officer.

Mr. Bhanu Kumar, learned counsel has assailed the action of the respondent-State on the ground that against the order dated 29.11.2010 which is

an order of the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribag whereby Annexure-1 has been confirmed, no appeal has been filed by the

department and thus, Annexure-1 has attained the finality. He further submits that in spite of that the land in question is being used for mining purposes

by the State and no compensation has been paid to the petitioners and that is why the petitioners have been compelled to file this writ petition.

Per contra, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that by way of Annexure-1 no right, title and interest can be

decided. He further submits that so far as the Annexure-4 which is a report of Circle Officer, and Annexure-5 which is an order of the Additional

Collector confirming the report of the Circle Officer are also not based on the facts and both the officers have given their report on perfunctory basis.

He further submits that the land in question has been notified as protected forest land under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, vide Gazette

Notification No. C/PF-10166 52-8 R dated 02.01.1953 by the Government of Bihar. He further submits that after vesting of the land in question

whether the Jamindar has been paid compensation or it is not prevalent at the relevant time, not has been brought on the record. He further submits

that the land in question is under the control and possession of the department of forest, which is apparent from the Gazette Notification. He further

submits that right, title and interest cannot be decided in the writ petition. He further submits that there is no order of any competent authority as to

how the Jamabandi in question in favour of the petitioners have been opened and hence Annexure-1 has been passed without considering this aspect

of the matter.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the land in question has already been notified as forest lands under Section 29 of

the Indian Forest Act. The said notification has been brought on record by way of counter-affidavit as Annexure-A wherein at serial No.13, the land

in question is shown to be a forest land. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Annexure-1 which is of the year 1963

whereas, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2014. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to suggest how the Jamabandi in favour of the

petitioners have been opened and Annexure-1 has been passed without considering that fact. This Court further finds that there is disputed question of

fact involved in this writ petition which cannot be decided in extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The notification

dated 02.01.1953 declaring the said land as protected Forest has not been challenged which has attained finality.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that there is no merit in this writ petition, accordingly, the writ petition

stands dismissed.

However, the petitioners, if so advised, may take other remedies available under law.