Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2228 (RAJ)

Div. Forest Officer v. Shrawan Singh

2006-07-14

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble, ARVIND, M.— This is a revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act,1956 against the order dated 24.9.2003 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar. 2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that the non-petitioner is claiming that the land of khasra Nos. 205, 206 and 211 of which total area is 4 bighas 2 biswas has wrongly been recorded in the name of Forest Department by Settlement Department and it should be recorded in the name of the non-petitioner No. 1. Instead of doing that the Forest Department initiated proceeding under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and by his order dated 22.6.2001 learned Asstt. Conservator of Forest ordered as under:- ^^vr% izLrqr nLrkostksa] lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g U;k;ky; fu.kZ; ysrh gS fd [kljk ua- 205] 206 ,oa 211 okds xzke vyoj ¼izrkicUn½ ou Hkwfe gSA ftl ij Jh Jo.kflag xqtZj iq= Jh xaxkflag xwtj lk- ykfn;k ekSgYyk vyoj us voS/k vfrØe.k dj dCtk dj j[kk gSA vr% vfrØeh dks mDr ou Hkwfe ls csn[ky djus dk vknsk izlkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA {ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh vyoj mDr Hkwfe ls vizkFkhZ dks csn[ky dj Hkwfe dk dCtk lEHkkys rFkk U;k;ky; dks lwfpr djsaA** 3. Aggrieved against this order an appeal was made to Collector by Shri Sharwan Singh and learned Collector ordered as under:- ^^blds mijkUr ewy vihyk/khu vknsk ij xkSj fd;k x;k ,oa i=koyh dk v|ksikUr voyksdu fd;k x;kA ftlds vuqlkj tekcUnh esa izlaxr Hkwfe [kljk ua- 205] 206 ,oa 211 egdek taxykr ds :i esa ntZ gSA vihykUV }kjk vihy esa vafdr rF; lgh ugha gSA D;ksafd vihykUV us vihy esa ;g Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gS u gh cgl ds nkSjku ;g voxr djk;k x;k gs fd izuxr Hkwfe dks izkFkhZ vius i{k esa fofu;eu djkus dks fdl izdkj ls gdnkj gSA vr% vihy vihykUV [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA rgr U;k;ky; dh vkKk fnukad 22-6-2001 ;Fkkor~ j[kh tkrh gSA fu.kZ; dh izfr okLrs lwpukFkZ ,oa vko;d dk;Zokgh gsrq rgr U;k;ky; dk Hksth tkosA fely uEcj ls de dh tkdj ckn rdehy tkIrk nkf[ky nrj gksA** 4. Appeal was preferred to the learned Revenue Appellate Authority who accepted the appeal and ordered as under:- ^^bl ckjs esa vihykFkhZ }kjk feyku {ks=Qy izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA pwafd iwoZ esa Hkh [kljk ua- 3971 dk jdck 4 ch?kk 2 fcLok vafdr fd;k x;k gS vkSj vc mlds u;s [kljk ua- 205] 206 o 211 cus gS ftl dk jdck 4 ch?kk 2 fcLok vafdr fd;k x;k gSA vr% izFke n`"V;k ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd nksuksa izdj.kksa esa Hkwfe ,d gh gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ds lUnHkZ esa {ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh vuqfpr gS vkSj {ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh dk vknsk o dysDVj] vyoj dk vknsk fujLruh; gSA vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA ifj.kker% vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA lgk;d ou laj{kd] vyoj dk vknsk fnukad 22-6-2001 rFkk dysDVj vyoj dk vknsk fnukad 26-9-2001 fujLr fd;s tkrs gSA izdj.k mi[k.M vf/kdkjh vyoj dks fHktokdj funsZfkr fd;k tkrk gS fd os jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh vyoj ds vknsk fnukad 1-12-83 dh ikyuk esa Hkw jktLo d`f"k iz;kstukFkZ Hkw vkoaVu fu;e 1970 ds fu;e 20 ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh djsaA ;g izdj.k cgqr iqjkuk gS vkSj jktLo vihy izkf/kdkjh vyoj ds fu.kZ; fnukad 1-12-83 esa vihykFkhZ dk iqjkuk dCtk ekuk x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izFke n`"V;k izdj.k fu;eu fd;s tkus dk curk gSA mi[k.M vf/kdkjh vyoj dks funsZfkr fd;k tkrk gS fd ojh;rk ds vk/kkj ij bl izdj.k dks ,d ekg esa fuLrkfjr dj bl U;k;ky; dks lwfpr djsaA** 5. Aggrieved against the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 24.9.2003 this is a revision petition by the Divisional Forest Officer, Alwar. 6. Agguing in support of the petition, the contention of learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that the land is recorded as Forest land and learned Revenue Appellate Authority had no right to order for consideration of regularisation of this land. He also argued that in view of the decision of Honble Supreme Court of India dated 12.12.96 any land which is recorded as forest land cannot be taken away from Forest Department. The claim of possession of the non-petitioner No. 1 is nothing more than that of a trespasser and a trespasser cannot be protected by the Court. Non-petitioner No. 1 has claimed possession over the land whereas he has no documents or any legal authority to get his possession regularised. Trespass on forest land can never be regularised. The claim of possession of the non-petitioner No. 1 is nothing more than that of a trespasser and a trespasser cannot be protected by the Court. Non-petitioner No. 1 has claimed possession over the land whereas he has no documents or any legal authority to get his possession regularised. Trespass on forest land can never be regularised. He also argued that the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority is evidently illegal, illogical and improper; hence needs to be set aside. 7. Arguing against the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioner is that the disputed land has been in possesion of the non-petitioner and learned Revenue Appellate Authority has rightfully ordered for regularisation. He also argued that in the earlier entries also Khasra No. 3917 area 4 bighas 2 biswas have become new Khasra Nos. 205, 206 and 211 area 4 bighas 2 biswas and he says that this land was earlier found to be regularisable by the earlier order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 1.12.83. He also argued that before settlement operations land was not recorded in the name of Forest Department and it was only after the settlement operation that the land was recorded in the name of Forest Department. He also argued that there are various authorities of Honble Board which say that Settlement Department has no right to change the previous entries. Any existing entry can be changed only by an order of competent authority. He invited our attention to 1969 RRD page 231 and 1973 RRD page 31. He also argued that learned Revenue Appellate Authority has rightly ordered to regularise this land because of old possession. 8. Having heard the parties, having perused the record and carefully and respectfully studying the authorities of the Honble Supreme Court and the Board referred above, I come to the following conclusions:- (i) That the disputed land is recorded as forest land in the record at present. (ii) When the land is recorded as forest land, Forest authorities have a right to take action under Section 91 of the L.R. Act. (iii) The argument of the non-petitioner that entries cannot be changed by Settlement Department cannot found a basis under the proceedings under Section 91 of the L.R. Act. (ii) When the land is recorded as forest land, Forest authorities have a right to take action under Section 91 of the L.R. Act. (iii) The argument of the non-petitioner that entries cannot be changed by Settlement Department cannot found a basis under the proceedings under Section 91 of the L.R. Act. It is not the proper forum where his defence can be acceptable as he has failed to raise a bona fide dispute because he has no order at present with him through which he can claim possession or regularisation. His possession is totally and wholly an act of trespass and a trespasser cannot be permitted to remain in possession on the forest land in view of Section 2(2) of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 and also in view of the principle laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India. It would be relevant to refer to the judgment dated 12.12.2006 of Honble Supreme Court passed in Civil Writ petition No. 202 of 1995. (iv) As per section 16(10) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 no khatedari rights be given to any person on forest land as long as entry remains in the name of forest-no trespass is regularizable. 9. The order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority dated 24.9.2003 is passed on prima facie conclusions as quoted here:- ^^ vr% izFke n`"V;k ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd nksuksa izdj.kksa esa Hkwfe ,d gh gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ds lUnHkZ esa {ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh vuqfpr gS vkSj {ks=h; ou vf/kdkjh dk vknsk o dysDVj] vyoj dk vknsk fujLruh; gSA vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 10. It is evident from the conclusion of learned Revenue Appellate Authority himself that he was not sure beyond doubt to come to a conclusion as he has himself says ^^vr% izFke n`"V;k ;g lkfcr gksrk gS** In a situation like this no order for regularisation can be given on forest land only on the basis of conclusion which is not final and the conclusion drawn by the learned R.A.A. himself is `prima facie and not final and conclusive and as such his order is full of perversity per se. 11. Distt. Collector has properly examined this matter in appeal and there is no illegality or impropriety in that order. Similarly learned Asstt. 11. Distt. Collector has properly examined this matter in appeal and there is no illegality or impropriety in that order. Similarly learned Asstt. Conservator of Forest has given proper opportunity of hearing and reached to a conclusion which is logically proper and legally correct. 12. In view of the conclusions above, the order of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar dated 24.9.2003 is set aside and the orders of learned Distt. Collector, Alwar and Asstt. Conservator of Forest dated 26.9.2001 and 22.6.2001 respectively are upheld. Revision is accepted. 13. Pronounced.