JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Sr. Counsel being assisted by Mr. T. Pogo, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the State/respondent. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the 157 petitioners, all are residents of Sibo-Siang Colony, near Horticulture College, Pasighat, have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the notification dated 18.10.1980, published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, dated 17th November, 1980, issued by the respondent authorities as per provision of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Regulation’). It is to be noted here that vide the impugned notification, the respondents have declared 398 acres of land of Pasighat Railway area as Reserved Forest in exercise of power conferred under Section 17 of the said Regulation. 3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition briefly stated as under: “The writ petitioners have their settlement in the Sibo-Siang Colony, near Horticulture College, Pasighat long back to early 1960s. Towards the east side of the aforesaid colony, there is Sibo-Korong river and the GTC Road (there is a confluence of Sibo-Korong and Siang Rivers, after which the Sibo-Korong river loses its existence and the Siang river moves towards the South, towards the East, there is Horticulture College, towards the North, there is NH-52 which goes westwards and crosses Sibo-Koreng river and towards the South, there is Siang River. 3.1. Wayback in the year 1960, a part of Pasighat Station Reserve area, measuring 162 acres of land between Pasighat Township and Sibo-Koreng river was acquired by the Union Government for maintaining the Green Belt for protection of Pasighat town from possible erosion by Sibo-Koreng river, as per Administrative Sanction No. REV-1/58, dated 14.05.1963, by purportedly making a payment of compensation amounting to Rs.52,105/- to the local people of the aforesaid area and as per letter No. REF-1/58/33, dated 03.09.1962, as per desire of the Ministry of External Affairs, the aforesaid acquired land was under direct supervision and control of the Forest Department, the proposal to constitute the Green Belt into a reserved forest was considered as the only way by which the Green Belt is to be preserved. Thereafter the Director of Forest vide his letter No. FOR/264/64/16410-12, dated 22.12.1964, asked the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Siang to publish a proposal for declaring the Green Belt as reserved forest under the name and style of Pasighat Station Reserve. Thereafter, the DFO, Siang submitted a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat vide his letter No. SFD/62/65/227-29, dated 17.01.1966. 3.2. Thereafter, the DFO, Along included some more areas to the original 162 acres of land, purportedly purchased from the villagers and thus, the total area proposed for reserved forest came to be 398 acres. Thereafter, the aforesaid proposal for declaring the Green Belt as the Pasighat Station Reserve was dully approved by the Deputy Commissioner, District East Siang, Pasighat and forwarded to the Director of Forest, vide letter No. FOR/16/65-66/11/14187, dated 03.02.1966. Consequent upon a notification issued under Section 5 of the Regulation was issued proposing to declare 398 acres of land between Pasighat Town and Sibo-Korong river as reserved forest, which was published in the Assam Gazette on 19.04.1967, covering the schedule described herein-below: North: From a point (A) where an artificially demarcated line meets the right bank of Sibokorong river downstream upto the old suspension bridge (pointing from Sibokorong river on Pasighat G.T.C. road 102 CL … (illegible). East: From the point (B) ….. old suspension bridge along G.T.C. Pasighat road in ……… direction till the road meet the Pasighat Ledum …… Craft Centre (point-C). South: Thence along the Pasighat-Ledum road upto its Junction with Pasighat-Balek Road (point-D). West: Thence along an artificially demarcated straight line cut at a bearing of 337 for 18 chains till it meets the Sibokorong river (starting point-A). 3.3. Consequent upon the notification, under Section 5 of the Regulation, the respondent authorities are to follow the mandatory procedure for constituting the reserved forest within the specified are, by issuing proclamation under Section 6 of the Regulation by the Forest Settlement Officer, specifying the situation and limits of the proposed forest, explaining the consequence to be ensued on reservation of such forest; fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of publication of such proclamation and requiring every person claiming any right or making any claim on any plot of land within the specified area, to represent before the Forest Settlement Officer. But no such proclamation was issued under Section 6 of the Regulation and no final notification was also issued declaring the aforementioned area as reserved forest, as required under Section 17 of the Regulation and thus the Notification under Section 5 of the Regulation dated 08.04.1967 and published in the Assam Gazette on 19.04.1967, was not taken to its logical conclusion as there was no compliance of the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 6, 8 and 17 of the Regulation. 3.4. Thereafter, in February, 1974, the DFO, Pasighat vide his letter No. PFD/170/71/1220-22, dated 27.02.1974 brought the matter to the notice of the Chief Conservator of Forest that draft final notification for declaring the notified area into reserved forest area, was sent by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pasighat. Thereafter, the Secretary, Forest without verifying the contents of the draft final notification, wherein the boundaries given in respect of the proposed Pasighat USF area was totally different from the boundaries of the Pasighat Station Reserve in connection with which notification under Section 5 of the Regulation was published in the Assam Gazette on 19.04.1967, issued final notification dated 18.10.1980, under Section 17 of the said Regulation and the same was published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, dated 17th November, 1980, for an area of 398 acres of land, given in the schedule of the aforementioned Section 17 notification, was totally different, with the following description of the boundaries: 1. North: The left bank of the left channel of Sibokorong river. 2. East: From the confluence of Sibokorong and Siang river downwards upto mid stream of the right channel of Siang river up to 21st mile colony where it meets the old Kobo-Pasighat road. 3. South: The end point of the 21st mile from where the Pasighat-Pilongmukh Forest road starts. 4. West: The G.T.C. Road from Sibokorong river to the junction near Craft Centre and then extending due south towards D.C.’s office upto a point where it joins the Pasighat-Pilongmukh Forest road beyond 21st mile colony. 3.5. 3. South: The end point of the 21st mile from where the Pasighat-Pilongmukh Forest road starts. 4. West: The G.T.C. Road from Sibokorong river to the junction near Craft Centre and then extending due south towards D.C.’s office upto a point where it joins the Pasighat-Pilongmukh Forest road beyond 21st mile colony. 3.5. Having noticed the irregularities, in issuing the aforementioned notification, the Deputy Commissioner, East Siang vide his letter dated 17.12.1985, brought the same to the notice of the DFO, Pasighat stating that the Green Belt has been created on the bank of the Sibo-Korong river to prevent erosion and the whole area falls under Pasighat Township and remains under the overall control of the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, in the year 1997, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being No. 01/1997 was filed by one Ninong Ering in connection with preservation of forest areas in an around Pasighat and one of the allegation made in the PIL was that even though the area of 398 acres of Pasighat Station Reserve is a notified reserved area, the State Government is permitting several new constructions and settlements in the area. In the said PIL, the Extra Assistant Commissioner, on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, District East Siang, Pasighat (respondent No. 4) has filed an affidavit stating that “…… till date no final notification has been issued in respect of the said 398 acres of land declaring the same to be a reserve forest. The final notification referred to, by the writ petitioners, is in respect of totally different areas other than the Pasighat Reserve Station. The boundaries and area mentioned in the preliminary notification are not the same as those mentioned in the final notification referred by the writ petitioner. The said final notification is not preceded by any preliminary notification nor have the condition precedents, to a final notification, been complied with due to oversight and mistake. 3.6. Thereafter, one Masong Pada has filed an RTI application on 17.08.2011, seeking disclosure of information with regard to status of 398 acres of land of so called Pasighat Station Reserve Forest with a prayer for furnishing a copy of the final notification of Pasighat Station Reserve Forest. 3.6. Thereafter, one Masong Pada has filed an RTI application on 17.08.2011, seeking disclosure of information with regard to status of 398 acres of land of so called Pasighat Station Reserve Forest with a prayer for furnishing a copy of the final notification of Pasighat Station Reserve Forest. However, in response to the application, the DFO, Pasighat Forest Division, vide his letter dated 15.09.2011, furnished the reply to Masong Pada that though a preliminary notification was issued in respect of the Pasighat Station Reserve Forest, no final notification of the Pasighat Station Reserve forest has been issued, and thus, it becomes clear that the Pasighat Station Reserve forest, comprising 398 acres of land cannot be treated to be reserved forest and as such, the Forest Department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, including the respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 have no authority to carry out any eviction from the aforesaid area. Despite the same, the petitioners are being harassed by the Forest Department officials from time to time and they have been threatened with eviction from the said reserved forest area, in which they have their settlement for more than four decades and on 11.07.2011, one of the petitioners has received such eviction notice for violation of Section 25(a)(d)(f) of the Regulation, 1891 and Section 2(ii) & (iv) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the petitioner was called upon to vacate the area within seven days from the date of the said notice.” 4. The respondent authorities entered appearance and submitted affidavit-in-opposition denying some of the averments made in the petition and admitting some of them. The respondent authorities entered appearance and submitted affidavit-in-opposition denying some of the averments made in the petition and admitting some of them. It is stated that 157 petitioners have illegally settled in the area notified in the preliminary notification, where they have no claim for any right and the said area was acquired by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, vide No. REV 4/64, dated 19.09.1964, and later handed over to the Department of Environment and Forest and since then, the Forest Department has been looking after the same as custodian and as per the record, the said area was free from any illegal encroachment till 1996 and the encroachment started during 1996 by some individuals to whom eviction notice was issued on 21.04.1996 and that there is no record in the name and style of Sibo-Siang Colony in the Pasighat Township and since the area is recorded as forest land, any activities taken up within the aforesaid area requires proper permission from the competent authority. It is also stated that safety of the Pasighat Township area is wholly and largely depends upon the reserved forest and keeping in mind the aforesaid danger from the mighty river Siang in the eastern side, notification of the area was made as per the Regulation and that the said area was gifted by executing one agreement/gift deed by the villagers and that the final notification was issued against 398 acres of land on 18.10.1980 and is not part of the area issued for preliminary notification and the two notified areas of preliminary notification and final notification are in different location, which is apparent from the descriptions of the respective boundaries and that the encroached area is in the preliminary notified area, where non-forest activities requires permission from the competent authorities and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 5. Thereafter, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondents, enclosing the map showing the Station Reserve forest under the Pasighat Forest Division, covered by the preliminary notification and the map showing Pasighat Station Reserve in the final notification. 6. Mr. 5. Thereafter, an additional affidavit was filed by the respondents, enclosing the map showing the Station Reserve forest under the Pasighat Forest Division, covered by the preliminary notification and the map showing Pasighat Station Reserve in the final notification. 6. Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the boundaries of the Pasighat Station Reserve forest area in preliminary notification dated 08.04.1967 and the final notification dated 18.10.1980, under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation are different areas and the notice under Section 36A of the Regulation has not been followed in the final notification issued under Section 17 of the Regulation and the claims and objections were not heard and only preliminary notification was issued and thereafter the respondent authorities remained silent but without issuing any final notification in respect of the Pasighat Station Reserve forest area, they have issued the eviction notice to the petitioners under Section 25A of the Assam Forest Regulation, which is illegal and the respondent authorities have no right to issue such notice to the petitioners and as such the right of the petitioners are violated and the same requires interference of this Court and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned final notification dated 18.10.1980, issued under Section 17 of the Regulation and for declaring the Pasighat Station Reserve forest area comprising 398 acres of land, not a reserved forest under the provision of the said Regulation. 7. Per contra, Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh submits that admittedly the land of the petitioners are not covered by the final notification, as the boundaries of the land covered by the preliminary notification is not the same land, in the boundary of the 398 acres of land, in the final notification and as such the petitioners have no locus for filing the present petition, being not affected by the final notification by the respondent authorities and as such the petition is not maintainable. Further, Mr. Tapin pointed out that there is delay of 34 years. The final notification was issued in the year 1980 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2014. However, Mr. Tapin admitted that while issuing the final notification, proper procedure had not been followed. Mr. Further, Mr. Tapin pointed out that there is delay of 34 years. The final notification was issued in the year 1980 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2014. However, Mr. Tapin admitted that while issuing the final notification, proper procedure had not been followed. Mr. Tapin further submits that the area where the petitioners’ are living has already been declared as reserved forest and only the Central Government has the authority to permit any non-forest activities over the said land and the Central Government has not been arrayed in this petition, as a necessary party and as such, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Tapin further submits that 162 acres of land have been acquired by the Government for the purpose of establishing reserve forest and the aforesaid land was donated by way of gift by the villagers to the Government and it was acquired under Section 2 of the Land Acquisition Act and the procedure as provided in the Regulation has not yet been completed and therefore, Mr. Tapin contended to dismiss the petition. 8. In reply to the aforesaid submission of Mr. Tapain, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant petition, the doctrine of continuous wrong is applied as since the very beginning, the respondent authorities have been perpetrating wrong and the petitioners are suffering for the same and the respondent authorities have no right to continue the same. Mr. Tiwari also referred to the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648 , to make good of his submission and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 9. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case law referred by Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners. 10. From the pleadings as well as submission of the parties, the issues, requiring adjudication of this court are framed as under: (i) Whether the final notification dated 18.10.1980 is illegal and void ab-initio, as no preliminary notification has been issued under Section 5 of the Regulation, covering the same plot of land? 10. From the pleadings as well as submission of the parties, the issues, requiring adjudication of this court are framed as under: (i) Whether the final notification dated 18.10.1980 is illegal and void ab-initio, as no preliminary notification has been issued under Section 5 of the Regulation, covering the same plot of land? (ii) Whether the land of 398 acre, covered by preliminary notification, dated 08.04.1967 can be treated as reserve forest? (iii) Whether the notices issued to the petitioner, under section 25(a)(d)(b) of Assam Forest Regulation and 2(ii) 2(iv) of Forest Conservation Act are illegal and without any authority of law? 11. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record reveals following admitted facts and circumstances: (i) Preliminary Notification under Section 5 of the Assam Regulation 1891 was issued on 8th August, 1967 proposing to declare Passighat Station Reserve, comprising of an area of 398 Acre. (ii) After issuance of the preliminary notification a final notification dated 18th October, 1980 was issued under Section 17 of the Regulation 1891 declaring 398 Acre of land as Passighat Station Reserve. (iii) Though the land measuring 398 Acre is same in both the preliminary notification and final notification are same, yet, the boundaries described in the Schedule of both the notifications are different. The final notification has not covered the area described in the schedule of the notification. (iv) After publication of the preliminary notification the procedure prescribed in Sections 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation, which are mandatorily required to be followed, have not been followed. (v) The land of the petitioners is not covered by the final notification. (vi) The petitioners have been dwelling in the area covered by the preliminary notification much prior to issuance of the same. (vii) Several Government establishments are there in the land covered by preliminary notification and land is also being allotted to establish a Medical College thereon. 12. (v) The land of the petitioners is not covered by the final notification. (vi) The petitioners have been dwelling in the area covered by the preliminary notification much prior to issuance of the same. (vii) Several Government establishments are there in the land covered by preliminary notification and land is also being allotted to establish a Medical College thereon. 12. In view of these indisputable factual position, there appears to be substances in the contention, so made in the petition by the petitioners that the preliminary notification, dated 8th April, 1967 under Section 5 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 lost its significance as the area covering 398 Acre, which was being proposed to declare as reserve forest, was not followed by a final notification after due consideration of the formalities so prescribed in Sections 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 covering the same area. This factual proposition remains indisputable. Mr. Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has rightly pointed this out during his argument. His submission that with the lapse of time, the preliminary notification dated 8th August, 1967 ceased to have any legal existence, has sufficient force. 13. Besides, the final notification dated 18th October, 1980 issued under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation declaring 398 Acres of land as Passighat Station Reserve, is also failed to withstand legal scrutiny, as it was not preceded by a preliminary notification under Section 5 of Assam Forest Regulation and observance of other formalities required to be observed under Sections 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. The respondent authorities in no uncertain terms admitted that the area covered by the preliminary notification under Section 5 and final notification under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation are different. In Annexure – 8 of the writ petition, which is the reply given by the DFO Passighat to the petitioners, as indicated the same. The Annexure 11, 12 and 13 enclosed with the Affidavit dated 29.01.2021, by the respondent authorities makes it very clear. The learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. S. Tapin also referring to the aforesaid Annexures has clearly stated that the area covered by both the notifications are different. The Annexure 11, 12 and 13 enclosed with the Affidavit dated 29.01.2021, by the respondent authorities makes it very clear. The learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. S. Tapin also referring to the aforesaid Annexures has clearly stated that the area covered by both the notifications are different. As the final notification under section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation has failed to withstand the legal scrutiny the same has to be declared void and as a logical corollary it has to be set aside and quashed. 14. Now coming to the second contention of the petitioners, I find that the respondent authorities have issued eviction notice to them under Section 25(a)(d)(b) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and Section 2(ii) 2(iv) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 to vacate the area within 7 days. Annexure -9 series at page nos. 51- 60 are the said notices. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the petitioners are encroachers in the forest land covered by the preliminary notification and as such they have no right to remain there. The counter submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the preliminary notification under Section 5 is not followed by a final notification under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation, the area being proposed to declare Passighat Reserve Forest, failed to attain finality. Claims and objection of the petitioners were newly heard by the respondents and they are living in the said area much prior to issuance of a preliminary notification and the various establishments of the respondent authorities are located there and a Medical College is also being proposed to establish there and as such, issuance of notice to the petitioners are ex-facie illegal. Mr. Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has rightly submitted that the principle of continuing wrong recurring/successive wrong as propounded in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) is applicable here in this case as final notification under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation was issued without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under sections 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and by issuing the eviction notices subsequently under sections 25(a)(d)(b) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and Section 2(ii) 2(iv) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 15. 15. To deal with the aforesaid contention a brief reference to the relevant provisions are necessary. Section 25 of the Assam Forest Regulation deals with acts prohibited in reserve forest. Clause (a) to section 25 prohibits fresh clearing and clause (d) prohibits falling, cutting, grinding, making, loping, taping or injuring by fire or otherwise of any tree and clause (b) prohibits clearing or breaking up any land for cultivation or any purpose. But, this section prohibits aforementioned acts in reserve forest area. Admittedly, here in this case the land of the petitioners is situated in an area which is not declared reserve forest. To become reserve forest notification has to be issued under section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation. Though preliminary notification was stood in respect of the said land final notification was admittedly not issued. That being so the respondents have no authority to issue eviction notice to the petitioners. 16. On the other hand, section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 deals with restriction on the dereservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. The question of dereservation of forest arises when there is a reserve forest. In absence of final notification the area concerned by a preliminary notification, cannot be treated as reserve forest. 17. Though the respondent authorities have taken a stand that final notification, for an area of 398 Acres of land was published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette and the same was done as per Assam Forest Regulation Act, 1891 under section 36A and the said notification is annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure-4, yet such a contention left this court unimpressed in as much as the same is the final notification dated 18.10.1980, and was issued under section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation. No such notification under section 36A of the Assam Forest Regulation appears to have been placed on record. That being so, that stand taken by respondent authority appears to be misleading. 18. Thus, having considered the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides and considering the facts and circumstances placed on record, I find the eviction notice issued to the petitioners, are ex-facie illegal and without any sanction and authority of land. As such, the same are liable to be set aside. 19. 18. Thus, having considered the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides and considering the facts and circumstances placed on record, I find the eviction notice issued to the petitioners, are ex-facie illegal and without any sanction and authority of land. As such, the same are liable to be set aside. 19. The outcome from the decision made herein above, the findings on the issues are summarized as under: (i) The final notification dated 18.10.1980, Annexure-I issued under Section 17 of the Assam Forest Regulation failed to withstand the legal scrutiny as it was issued in connection with a land which was not proceeded by a preliminary notification. (ii) The area of 398 Acres covered by preliminary notification under Section 5 of Assam Forest Regulation cannot be treated as reserve forest as it was not followed by a final notification. (iii) The notices, issued to the petitioners are illegal and without any sanction of law. 20. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed, granting following relief(s): (i) The impugned final notification dated 18.10.1980, stands quashed for being issued without following the procedure prescribed under the Assam Forest Regulation. (ii) Consequently, the land covered by the preliminary notification under Section 5 of the Assam Forest Regulation cannot be treated as reserve forest as no final notification in respect of the same was issued. (iii) The eviction notice for violation of Section 25(a)(d)(f) of the Regulation, 1891 and Section 2(ii) & (iv) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, issued to the petitioners stands quashed for being issued without any authority of law. 21. However, it is being clarified that quashing of the notification dated 18.10.1980, would not stand in the way of initiation of fresh step for declaring the Passighat Station Reserve as reserve forest under the Assam Forest Regulation, following due procedure of law. 22. The parties have to bear their own costs.