Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 973 (JHR)

Bikramaditya Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2022-08-04

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding arising out of C3/Forest Case No. 12 of 2014 vide prosecution report no. 62 dated 25.06.2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 28.07.2016 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. 3. Prosecution report has been submitted alleging therein that on 30.08.2014 at about 11.45 A.M. during the course of patrolling duty it was found that these petitioners were illegally constructing the houses as well as boundary wall. On seeing the patrolling party, the accused persons fled away and the materials found in the place of occurrence have been seized. 4. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is the President and petitioner no. 3 is the Secretary of Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirwan Samiti. He further submits that the land in dispute is plot nos. 5 and 15 of village Bandhgora, Thana No. 35, P.S. Pindrajora, District-Bokaro which was raiyati land and earlier a dispute was raised between the Forest Department and concerned raiyats of the plot in question for which the Title Suit No. 140 of 1954 was preferred by 11 plaintiffs against the State of Bihar and one of the plaintiff was Shanti Ram Mahtha and the plot nos. 5 and 15 of Khata No. 28 were covered in the said title suit. He further submits that on 24.07.1956 a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs of the said title suit in which it was held that the said government notification would not cover plot no. 5 and 15 as private protected forest of Forest Department and as such the right title and the interest of the plaintiffs was maintained over the same. He further submits that the said land was purchased by the Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti from heirs of Shanti Ram Mahtha by registered deed in the year, 1984. 5 and 15 as private protected forest of Forest Department and as such the right title and the interest of the plaintiffs was maintained over the same. He further submits that the said land was purchased by the Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti from heirs of Shanti Ram Mahtha by registered deed in the year, 1984. He further submits that when the members of the said Samiti were started to construct their house, the Range Officers, Chas Range, Chas has filed a petition under section 144 of the Cr.P.C. registered as Case No. 1701 of 1987 and the same was decided in favour of the Samiti on 12.02.1988. He further submits that again a petition under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the Forest Department against the petitioners in which an attachment order was passed and the same was challenged before the Hon’ble Court which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 27 of 1990 (R) which was decided on 23.05.1995 holding therein that Notification under section 29 of the Act was published, possession of the land would be deemed to have been taken by the Forest Department, cannot be held to be legally sustainable and must be rejected. He further submits that the Range Officer, Chas Range, Chas thereafter filed a land encroachment case before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad which was numbered as BPLE Case No. 19 of 1988-89 against the Adarsh Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti and the said case was decided in favour of the said Samiti. He further submits that inspite of these orders Forest Department again issued a notice on 20.11.1992 in the same case i.e. BPLE Case No. 19 of 1988-89 and being aggrieved by the same the Samiti filed a Writ Application numbered as CWJC No. 1232 of 1993 which was finally decided on 16.06.2003 by which notice was quashed by this Court and the case was decided in favour of the petitioners. He further submits that in the said case liberty was provided to the Forest Department to avail remedy but the remedy was not availed and again the Forest Department filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2005 which is still pending. He further submits that in the said case liberty was provided to the Forest Department to avail remedy but the remedy was not availed and again the Forest Department filed Title Suit No. 11 of 2005 which is still pending. He further submits that this case was instituted by the O.P. No. 2 only on the basis that the land belongs to Forest Department on the basis of notification, but the said notification has already been held by this Court as not legally sustainable and further it was held that the land belongs to the Samiti, inspite of that Forest Department has instituted the present case against the petitioners. He further submits that the learned Munsif, Purulia in T.S. No. 140 of 1954 vide decree dated 30.07.1956 issued the decree in favour of petitioners declaring that the property decreed in schedule no. 1 to 4 have not been constituted into private protected forest land as contemplated under Bihar Forest Act. He further submits that notification under section 29 of the Forest Act is dated 24.05.1958 and Section 30 (b) of the Act provides that notification shall remain in force for 30 years. He further submits that no notification is there under section 30 of the Act. 5. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that title suit is still pending and so far as facts of the orders passed in different proceedings, has not been denied by the learned counsel for the State. 6. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that land in question was decreed in favour of Shanti Ram Mahtha and the same was purchased by the Samiti from Shanti Ram Mahtha that was subject matter of different proceedings as noted here-in-above which has not denied by the learned counsel for the State. Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act read with section 30(b) of the Act provides that notification shall remain in force for 30 years. Admittedly, there is no notification under section 30 of the Act. 7. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, entire criminal proceeding arising out of C3/Forest Case No. 12 of 2014 vide prosecution report no. Admittedly, there is no notification under section 30 of the Act. 7. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, entire criminal proceeding arising out of C3/Forest Case No. 12 of 2014 vide prosecution report no. 62 dated 25.06.2016 including the order taking cognizance dated 28.07.2016 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, are hereby quashed. 8. This criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of. Pending, I.A., if any stands disposed of. Interim order dated 17.07.2018 is vacated.