Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 533 (UTT)

Shrimati Archana Shukla v. Muni Chidanand

2020-12-04

RAVI MALIMATH, RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. - A counter-affidavit of Shri Rajiv Dhiman, presently posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Dehradun has been filed. He has stated in paragraph no.3 as follows:- "3. That in respect of the query raised by the Hon'ble Court, it is humbly submitted that for illegal entry and occupation of forest land, a forest offence report (H2 case) has been registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended from time to time). The charge-sheet has been filed in the Hon'ble Trial Court. Now, since the matter is under consideration of Hon'ble Trial Court, hence the recovery of fine etc. shall not be decided by the respondent no.5. Further it is reiterated that the respondent no.5 is duty bound to comply the final order passed and recovery of penalty if any by the Hon'ble Trial Court". 2. Shri S.S. Chauhan, learned deputy advocate general appearing for the State submits that, since proceedings are seized of before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, recovery of fine etc. cannot be decided by respondent no.5 presently. 3. The learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, submits that his application under Section 2(iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is pending before the concerned authority. The application was made in the year 2016 and various proceedings and queries etc. have been taken place. As a consequence to the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by this Court, the authority is not considering the said application. Hence, it is pleaded that the Court may direct the authority to consider the application without reference to the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 13.12.2019. 4. We have considered the contentions. We do not find from the record that the proceedings before the authority have been stalled only because of the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by this Court. It would appear to be an apprehension of respondent no.1 that proceedings are not being taken forward, only because of the order dated 13.12.2019. Therefore, until and unless, we are convinced of the fact that the proceedings are stalled only because of the order dated 13.12.2019, we do not find it necessary to modify the said order. 5. The first prayer of the petitioner does not survive anymore, in view of the demolition that has taken place. Therefore, until and unless, we are convinced of the fact that the proceedings are stalled only because of the order dated 13.12.2019, we do not find it necessary to modify the said order. 5. The first prayer of the petitioner does not survive anymore, in view of the demolition that has taken place. In view of the counter-affidavit dated 03.12.2020, we are of the considered view that the second prayer of the writ petitioner is, accordingly, answered. The plea to recover the amount for illegal occupation would be considered by the concerned authority in the proceedings that have already been initiated. Therefore, we do not find any reason to protract this matter. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed off.