Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 180 (JHR)

C. P. Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2014-01-28

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER 1. By invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of B.F. Case No. 7 of 2012 including the order whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989) and also under Sections 63 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act has been taken against these petitioners on the allegation that the petitioners, officials of M/s. Electro Steel Steels Limited by using heavy earth moving machine did non-forest activities over the land which was part of the forest land. 2. Earlier on the allegation of constructing boundary wall over the land bearing plot Nos. 1120 and 1105 which are the subject-matter in this case and also over plot Nos. 1159, 1389 and 1321 appertaining to khata No. 58, mauza No. 83, situated at Village Bhagabandh, District-Bokaro, several cases were lodged against number of employees including the Director of M/s. Electro Steels Limited, upon which cognizance of the offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was taken. 3. Those orders were challenged before this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 1653 of 2009 and analogous cases. This Court having taken notice of the facts that process of the notification as claimed to have been issued under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act had never been completed and that the parties have been exercising their respective rights titles and possession over the land on the basis of registered sale-deeds executed by the raiyats in whose favour decree of declaration of right and title had been passed by the Court of the competent jurisdiction quashed the proceedings of all the cases including orders taking cognizance, vide order dated 31.7.2010. 4. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 9884 to 9887 which got dismissed. However, while, dismissing, it was observed that the impugned order as well as the order of this Court shall not preclude the State from taking such appropriate action in the matter as may be available to it in law. 5. 4. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 9884 to 9887 which got dismissed. However, while, dismissing, it was observed that the impugned order as well as the order of this Court shall not preclude the State from taking such appropriate action in the matter as may be available to it in law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that mainly on those two grounds, the entire criminal proceeding in the cases, referred to above, is being sought to be quashed, as the petitioners have derived right, title and interest over the land, in question by virtue of the sale-deeds executed by the raiyats in whose favour decree with respect to right, title and interest was passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction and thereby the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence either under the Indian Forest Act or Conservation of Forest Act and as such, the entire criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed. 6. A counter-affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that by virtue of a notification issued in the year 1958 under Section 29(3) of the Act, land in question has been declared as protected forest and as such, any non-forest act by anyone over the said land would fasten him with criminal liability under the Forest Act. 7. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to paragraphs 17 and 18 of the counter-affidavit which reads as under:- "That forest settlement officer was appointed vide Government notification No. SO 1014 dated 05.11.1969 and the said officer after verifying and considering all the relevant documents produced before him from all the raiyat interested passed the necessary order/inquiry report demarcating the different plots of the said mauza within green line as demarcated protected forest." "That on the said demarcation map, all the concerned officials viz. Forest Settlement Officer, Divisional Forest Officer put their signatures." 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record including the order passed in Cr. Forest Settlement Officer, Divisional Forest Officer put their signatures." 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record including the order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 1653 of 2009, as well as analogous cases, it does appear that the Court while dealing with the matter related with those cases did record that in a Title Suit preferred by the raiyats against the Department of Forest, it was held that the process of the notification as contemplated under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act never got completed and thereby purported notification will never assume the characteristics of the notification as contemplated under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act and thereby it will not extinguish the rights of the raiyats and as such, any act/acts done by raiyats or successors in interest in exercise of their rights over the land which was never found to be the land of protected forest would never entail the person with criminal liability. 9. Similar was the dispute in case of Brajesh Kumar Ray & other vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2005 (2) East Cr C 208 (Jhr): (2005) 3 JCR 464 (Jhr), where the petitioners were sought to be prosecuted by the Department of Forest when they in exercise of their rights have used the land claimed by the Department to be the forest land. While allowing the case, it was observed by this Court which reads as follows:- "All these merely shows that the parties are at litigating terms and both of them arc claiming their respective right, title and possession. The petitioners are claiming right, title on the basis of registered sale-deed obtained from the raiyats, whereas, the State is claiming that it as a protected forest and thereby land of the State. In the aforesaid circumstances, there being genuine disputes of right and title, I hold that the criminal proceedings are not warranted in law. In fact the State, including its Forest Department, should pursue the remedy in the suit/appeal, either pending before civil Court, having competent jurisdiction, or before this Court." 10. This Court by putting reliance on the said case allowed the cases bearing Cr. M.P. No. 1653 of 2009 and analogous cases as facts were almost identical in all those case. 11. In fact the State, including its Forest Department, should pursue the remedy in the suit/appeal, either pending before civil Court, having competent jurisdiction, or before this Court." 10. This Court by putting reliance on the said case allowed the cases bearing Cr. M.P. No. 1653 of 2009 and analogous cases as facts were almost identical in all those case. 11. Similar is the case of the petitioners in all these cases, where the petitioners in exercise of their rights derived from the raiyats did the alleged act. There appears to be serious disputes with respect to right, title and interest over the land, which has still not been settled as title suit as has been informed on behalf of the petitioners is pending in between the parties where both the parties are claiming their right and title. Under these situations, continuance of criminal cases between the parties are unwarranted. 12. Under the circumstance entire criminal proceeding of B.F. Case No. 07 of 2012, pending in the court below, including the orders under which cognizance of the offences under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989) and also under Sections 63 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act has been taken against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 13. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.