Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 385 (JHR)

Manorma Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-25

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard Mr. Shravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned APP for the State. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with U.C. Case No.155 of 2014, including order dated 10.07.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra, by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 3A of the Forest Conservation Act against these petitioners. 3. The prosecution report suggests that in course of patrolling by the Forest Officials, it was found that the petitioners were erecting the wall within the forest area. The report was submitted that the alleged area being Plot No.1146 was notified to the forest area in the year 1953, vide Notification No. CPF 10171/52-28R-2.1.1953. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegation, cognizance was also taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra for the offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 3A of the Forest Conservation Act, vide order dated 10.07.2015. 5. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the notification is dated 02.01.1953, and after expiry of 30 years in terms of Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act, the area in question ceased to be forest land and, therefore, any construction made in the said land, would not attract either of the provision of the Indian Forest Act or Forest Conservation Act. It has been submitted that in fact, the petitioners had purchased the said plot of land by virtue of registered sale deed and rent receipts have also been granted to them and if at all the forest department was aggrieved, they could have preferred a Title Suit. 6. Learned APP for the State has submitted that the petitioners were found making construction in the forest land, which comes within the purview of Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 7. The Notification, which has been referred to in the prosecution report does not disclose that it was notified in terms of Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act. Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, covers protected forest, which includes the forest-land as well as waste land. 7. The Notification, which has been referred to in the prosecution report does not disclose that it was notified in terms of Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act. Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, covers protected forest, which includes the forest-land as well as waste land. Sub Section (a) of Section 30 gives power to the State Government to declare any trees or class of tress in a protected forest to be reserved from the date fixed by the notification. Similarly sub Section (c) of Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, prohibits, from a date fixed as aforesaid, the quarrying of stone, or the burning of lime or charcoal, or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process, or removal of, any forest-produce in any such forest, and the breaking up or clearing for cultivator, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land in any such forest. 8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners primarly revolves around Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act, which envisages any portion of protected forest, shall be closed for such term, not exceeding thirty years, and the rights of private persons, over such portion of land, shall be suspended during such terms, provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the right suspended in the portion so closed. Section 30(b) can be exercised by way of an emergency. 9. The Notification, which forms the basis of the forest offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, does not disclose as to whether the same was issued under Section 30 (a), (b) or (c) of the Indian Forest Act. In such circumstances, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the notification so issued was under Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after 30 years from the date of issuance of the notification, the protected forest looses its characteristics, is misconceived and is negated. 10. In such circumstances, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the notification so issued was under Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after 30 years from the date of issuance of the notification, the protected forest looses its characteristics, is misconceived and is negated. 10. So far as claim of the petitioner is that he had purchased the land by virtue of the sale deed is concerned, this Court in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not empowered to conduct a roving inquiry or sift through their evidences to come to a conclusion and the evidence which the petitioners have brought before this Court, can be looked into at the appropriate stage before the learned court below. 11. Thus, having found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.