Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 205 (JHR)

Ram Lal Jamuda And Motai Jojo v. State Of Bihar

2003-02-13

TAPEN SEN

body2003
ORDER Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The writ petitioners are aggrieved with the manner in which their dwellings were demolished by Officers belonging to the department of Forests causing loss and injury to them. The petitioners have stated that apart from destroying their habitats, these officers also took away the household articles belonging to them. They have further stated that they are poor villagers who were subjected to unforeseen miseries at the time when these officers appeared. They suffered mental harassment and torture; so much so that the respondents did not even care to first comply with an earlier order that was passed in CWJC No. 1203 of 1995(R), a copy whereof has been brought on record by Annexure 1 to the Writ Application. In the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, it has inter alia, been contended that the allegations of the petitioners are not true and that the allegations are vague, inasmuch as no details in relation to the Patrolling Parties have been furnished. It has further been contended that upon enquiry made by the respondent No. 2 and from the report of the Officer-in-charge, Muffasil Police Station, it transpires that, in fact, no Patrolling Party had been deputed by the Muffasil Police Station for the villages in question and, therefore, the question of carrying away articles from the residence of the petitioners does not arise. The Counter Affidavit further proceeds to deny statements made by the petitioners and goes to the extent of refuting the charge in relation to demolition of the houses of the petitioners. On an earlier occasion when this case was taken up on 10.4.1995, this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner to personally enquire into the matter and submit report to this Court with reference to the allegations made in the writ petition. 3. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (West), Chaibasa has submitted a report. When this case was taken up on 14.11.2002, it was, however, noticed that the Department of Forests had not been made party in this case. Consequently the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to implead the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Jharkhand as respondent No. 5 and Lalan Singh, Range Officer of Forests as respondent No. 6. Thereafter a Counter affidavit has been filed in CWJC No. 689 of 1994(R) and Mr. Consequently the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to implead the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Jharkhand as respondent No. 5 and Lalan Singh, Range Officer of Forests as respondent No. 6. Thereafter a Counter affidavit has been filed in CWJC No. 689 of 1994(R) and Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned Government Advocate has submitted that this Counter Affidavit may also be treated as Counter affidavit in the other case i.e. CWJC No. 542 of 1994(R). From a perusal of the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West, it appears that the demolition took place on 27.2.1994. The Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Jharkhand discloses that the petitioners were encroachers on reserved forest lands by clearing vegetations over it and settling down on forest lands after constructing houses thereon. It has further been stated in the Counter Affidavit that a criminal forest case has been instituted vide Offence Report dated 13.4.1994 which is subjudice in the Court of the Magistrate at Chaibasa and that a proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act has also been instituted against the petitioner No. 1 of CWJC No. 689 of 1994(R) (Ram Lal Jamuda) for his eviction. In support of the aforesaid contention, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has annexed An- nexures A and B which show that they were all initiated on 13.4.1994, i.e. after the date of demolition, which the Deputy Commissioners report reveals to be 27.2.1994. 4. Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned Government Advocate further submits that on 3.5.2002 a letter has been sent from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India in relation to eviction of illegal encroachment on forest lands in various States. He relies on Annexure E and states that even the Supreme Court is greatly concerned with the problem of encroachment of forest lands and have restrained the Central Government, by order dated 23.11.2001 from regularization of encroachments in the country in W.P. 202 of 1995. 5. He has further stated that in paragraph 9 of the Writ Application, the petitioners have stated specifically that the Patrolling Party consisted of police men of the department of police and that none of the forest officers were made respondents. 6. This Court hastens to add that if there are encroachment then those cases must be dealt with very firmly but, in accordance with law. 6. This Court hastens to add that if there are encroachment then those cases must be dealt with very firmly but, in accordance with law. From the aforementioned facts it is however apparent that the demolition took place on 27.2.1994 when there was neither any prosecution report not BPLE proceedings had been Initiated. From the own showing of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the BPLE proceeding came to be initiated on 13.4.1994 as stated at paragraph 7 and 8 of the said Counter Affidavit read with Annexures A and B thereto, whereas the demolition took place on 27.2.1994. 7. In that view of the matter on the day when the incident occurred, i.e. 27.2.1994, neither any BPLE proceeding nor any case relating to forest offence had been launched. 8. Now coming back to the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa and on perusal thereof what appears is that the petitioners are dwellers in JHOPRIES. The report at paragraphs 8 and 9 does support the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that there was partial damage of the dwellings of these poor and helpless citizens of our country. The report also discloses that the Officers of the Department of Forests had, in fact, gone to the villages in question to stop alleged construction being made on reserved Forests Land and with that object in mind, these officers did embark upon a process of their removal, and in that process, partially damaged the dwellings of these petitioners. So far as the allegation of carrying away articles is concerned, the Deputy Commissioner has said that this part of the allegation is not correct. 9. The very fact that the Deputy Commissioner admits the visit of these officers and of partial damage, is sufficient to prove that in fact, there was an activity resorted to by people who were superior, inasmuch as they were officers of the Government and these poor villagers at that point of time must have been subjected to extreme mental agony and fear. These helpless villagers were spectators to the destruction being caused to their dwellings, though partial in nature. If it was a reserved forest area, then it was incumbent upon these officers to have first taken recourse to the legal provisions and to have first given notice and to have acted in accordance with law. These helpless villagers were spectators to the destruction being caused to their dwellings, though partial in nature. If it was a reserved forest area, then it was incumbent upon these officers to have first taken recourse to the legal provisions and to have first given notice and to have acted in accordance with law. Instead of doing so and without initiating any proceedings for removal of encroachment, they straightaway seem to have taken the law in their hands and gone to the extent of damaging the dwellings of these poor and helpless citizens of our country, albeit partially. 10. Our Constitution does not contemplate such unilateral acts nor does it confer such an unfettered powers upon the officers of the Government. On the contrary, our Constitution promises through its preamble that "We the people of the India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic and to secure to all its citizens, justice, social economic and political; liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; equality of status and of opportunity, and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation." 11. Thus, the mother of all laws, i.e., our Constitution, has promised and assured not only dignity to every citizen but has also assured equality of status and opportunity and justice, social economic and political. 12. From what happened on the fateful day, as it is apparent from the report of the Deputy Commissioner, is something which grieves the heart of this Court. What these officers did on that day is something for which we should be ashamed of The law and the concept of equality of justice is not meant only for the upper strata and the superior strata of our society. It is meant to percolate and trickle down even into the distant nucleus of our social structure and contain within it sweep even those, who reside in remote jungle area and villages, much below the line of poverty but who, nevertheless, are very much citizens of our own country. This Court as a Court of equity cannot shut its eyes to such gross injustice that may have been committed upon such hapless individuals. This Court as a Court of equity cannot shut its eyes to such gross injustice that may have been committed upon such hapless individuals. Article 21 of the Constitution of India ensures that no person of our country shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Today, looking back and gazing on various constitutional pronouncements, one has to accept that now it is a well known and well recognized canon of law that the right to live enshrined under Article 21 also includes the right to live decently and this right, in turn, includes the right to live with dignity and honour. When the State or its Officers go on a rampage and even partially damage or destroy a persons habitat, the elementary concept of the right to life lies strewn on the ground in millions of broken fragments crying out loud to world that "here lies the Constitution and its ideas which we refuse to honour". A moment of shame and agony for the guardians and protectors of law. 13. The other aspect which also touches the heart of this Court is the fact that on the one hand the petitioners have stated that these Officers carried away all articles while, on the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner refutes such allegations and says that this is not true. This Court wonders and poses a question to itself and asks as to what possible articles of these poor villagers could have been taken away...? These people living below the poverty line and residing in deep and interior villages surrounded by forests can hardly be said to be in possession of worldly articles of luxury which, for want of a better name we term as "house-hold goods". Perhaps the household articles that they possess could be in the shape of a cot woven by ordinary cotton threads or utensils made of leaves. If steel utensils, electronic gadgets, motor cars and expensive furniture are regarded by the upper strata of the society as indispensable but valuable house-hold items, then why cannot these children of lesser gods also regard simple cots, leaf utensils, firewood etc. as indispensable house-hold articles so very integral to their kind of living? If steel utensils, electronic gadgets, motor cars and expensive furniture are regarded by the upper strata of the society as indispensable but valuable house-hold items, then why cannot these children of lesser gods also regard simple cots, leaf utensils, firewood etc. as indispensable house-hold articles so very integral to their kind of living? When such a simple and poor villager complains that his household articles have been taken away, a person listening to him and who belongs to the upper strata would hardly notice them to be missing and would come to a conclusion that the grievances are not correct. This Court, therefore, refrains from making any comments on the report of the Deputy Commissioner in this respect and merely hastens to add that the Deputy Commissioner could perhaps have been more meticulous in his enquiry. From every angle, therefore, it is apparent that the petitioners are entitled to be compensated. 14. At this stage, Mr. R.S. Majumdar, learned Government Advocate points out that from a perusal of paragraph 9 of the report, it is apparent that it was actually one Lalan Singh, Range Officer who was responsible for the incident and therefore, if any compensation is to be paid the same should be paid by Lalan Singh and not by the Government. 15. This Court is not inclined to accept the aforementioned submission of Mr. Majumdar, learned Government Advocate inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show on establish that the Department of Forests did anything to protect the constitutional safeguards of the petitioners. There is also nothing on record to suggest that the Department of Forests took action against the concerned Range Officer. Moreover, from the Counter affidavit filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as also from the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa it is apparent that the respondents initiated the law into motion only on 13.4.1994, i.e. almost two months after the date of demolition, Le. 27.2.1994. Admittedly therefore, on the day when the demolition took place there were no proceedings pending against the petitioners. Mr. RS. Majumdar, learned Government Advocate has further submitted and stated that the specific case of the petitioners as stated in paragraph 5 of the Writ Application is that the demolition took place on 1.2.1994 at 3 p.m. whereas the date mentioned in the report of the Deputy Commissioner is 27.2.1994. Mr. RS. Majumdar, learned Government Advocate has further submitted and stated that the specific case of the petitioners as stated in paragraph 5 of the Writ Application is that the demolition took place on 1.2.1994 at 3 p.m. whereas the date mentioned in the report of the Deputy Commissioner is 27.2.1994. However, taking into consideration the fact that the Writ Application was filed on 22.2.1994 and by order dated 10.4.1995 the Deputy Commissioner was directed to personally inquire into the matter, where after he did so and submitted the report on 1.8.1995, this Court, therefore, taking into consideration the said report is satisfied that the date is 27.2.1994. Paragraph 1 of the said report also refers to 1.2.1994 but the finding of the Deputy Commissioner is 27.2.1994. 16. Considering therefore, the case in its entirety this Court has no hesitation but to hold that what these officers did on 27.2.1994 was something, which the law did not permit them to do. This Court, therefore, allows the Writ Application but considering the area where the incident took place and also considering the overall poverty of these people living in "Jhopris", the sum of Rs. 52,000/- per person as claimed is very much on the higher side. This Court, therefore, awards compensation for mental agony and torture to the extent of Rs. 7,500/- to each of the petitioners. 17. Let it however be recorded that this order shall not in anyway be construed to mean that it will affect the merits of either the BPLE proceedings or the Forest Offence Case referred to at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. These cases will proceed on their own merits in accordance with law and if the petitioners are actually found to be encroachers then in that event the law will take its own course. The only reason why compensation has been awarded in this case is because on the date of demolition, i.e. 27.2.1994 there was no proceeding pending as against the petitioners and therefore on that day the respondents appear to have taken the law in their hands which must be deprecated and condemned. 18. The Writ Application therefore succeeds to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.