Allahabad High Court
Yogesh Krishn vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 2 August, 2023
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:154213-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24533 of 2023
Petitioner :- Yogesh Krishn
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Prakash Deo Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Udai Prakash Deo Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs :-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to restrain the forest department/ respondent no. 4 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the plot no. 425 Kha,M area 0.0380 hectare situated in village and post- Kota, Pargana- Agori, Tehsil- Obra, District- Sonbhadra over which the house and sahan of the petitioner are existing.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 10.07.2023 within stipulated time."
3. It is contended that the petitioner's land in dispute has been recorded in jungle khata and the abadi has been constructed over the plot in question for more than six decades and the officials of the forest department tried to demolish the residential house over the plot. It is submitted that the proceedings under the Indian Forest Act by issuance of the notifications under Section 4 and 6 have been initiated without following due process of law. It is further contended that similar controversy has earlier been raised before this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.56003 of 2017 (Adivasi Vanvasi Maha Sabha, Chandauli v. Union of India & Ors.), which was disposed of on 11.10.2018 leaving it open to the petitioners' association to make individual application under Section 6 of the Act of 2006 for seeking recognition of their forest rights. It was also provided that in case any such application is made, the Gram Sabha/ Authority shall consider the same and take decision in the matter expeditiously and preferably within 12 weeks. Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 29.8.2013 in Writ-C No.44551 of 2013 (Rameshwar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Ors.), wherein similar controversy has been decided with following observations:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the submission advanced from both sides and in the light of the facts so stated this court is not to go into the details for disposing this petition, as keeping the matter pending will be futile exercise and that will just delay the finality of the things.
Petitioner claims protection as provided in The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of various Rights) Act, 2006.
Accordingly, we need not to go into the merits of the matter so as to record a finding either way but at the same time we propose to dispose of this petition by giving following directions-
i) Petitioner is to file certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today before the competent authority.
ii) On receipt of the move it will be the concern of the concerned competent authority to proceed as provided under the Act and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within shortest possible time preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the move.
iii) It is observed that except in accordance with law there will be no interference in the rights of the petitioner.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits as we have not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and thus decision of the concerned competent authority will be his independent exercise as may be permissible in law.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, has contended that the petitioner being on similar footing is also entitled for similar indulgence.
5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law expeditiously.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue and with consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the authority concerned to look into, examine and redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and considering the judgments cited above expeditiously but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter.
Order Date :- 2.8.2023/ Rama Kant
