Lalman Ramlal Dhandekar And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 11374 Bom

WP 3261-20                                     1                   Judgment

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 3261/2020

1.     Lalman Ramlal Dhandekar,
       Aged 51, Occ: Police Patil.
2.     Ramlal Dadu Dhandekar,
       Aged 75 years, farmer.
3.     Sakharam Shamlal Dhandekar,
       Aged 55 years, farmer.
4.     Anil Lalman Dhandekar,
       Aged 30 years, Occ: farmer.
5.     Gaju Babya Dhandekar,
       Aged 34, Occ: farmer.
6.     Raju Babya Dhandekar,
       Aged 35 years, farmer.
All residents of Village Pastalai, Po. Shahapur,
Taluka Chikhaldhara, Dist. Amravati.                          PETITIONERS
                                   -VERSUS-
1.     State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief
       Secretary, Government of Maharashtra,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 001.
2.     Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest
       Department, having his office at
       Mantralaya, Mumbai.
3.     Divisional Commissioner,
       Amravati, at Amravati.
4.     Collector, District Amravati.
5.     Range Forest Officer,
       Forest Range, Chikhaldara, having his
       Office at Chikhaldara.
6.     Principal Chief Conservator of Forest
       (Wildlife) Van Bhavan, Ramgiri Road,
       Civil Lines Near Police Gymkhana, CBI
       Colony, Nagpur, Maharashtra 440 001.                 RESPONDENTS
__________________________________________________________________________
 Ms Gayatri Singh, Senior Advocate with Shri N.B. Rathod, M. Kukalia and Ms
               Pournima Upadhyay, counsel for the petitioners.
  Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
 WP 3261-20                                   2                      Judgment

CORAM :         A. S. CHANDURKAR      AND    URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD               : 26TH AUGUST,       2022.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2022.
JUDGMENT         (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners claim to be tribals residing at village Pastalai,

Taluka Chikhaldara, District Amravati. According to them, the

respondents without following the procedure as prescribed have sought to

forcibly relocate the petitioners in a manner contrary to law. The

petitioners have sought a declaration that Compartment No.36 which

includes village Pastalai is not a part of any sanctuary or national park nor

has the prescribed procedure being followed to include said village within

the boundaries of such sanctuary or park.

3. Ms Gayatri Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in

support of the prayers made in the writ petition raised the following

contentions:-

(a) The portion of village Pastalai where the petitioners reside did not

fall within any protected area as declared under the Wildlife (Protection)

Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972'). For said reason the petitioners

were not liable to be evicted from their homes on the ground that they

reside on lands that fall within such protected areas. In this regard it was

submitted that on 27.11.1987 a notification under Section 35(1) and (2) WP 3261-20 3 Judgment

of the Act of 1972 came to be issued. By the said notification the State

Government declared its intention to constitute the areas indicated in the

Schedule to constitute areas of Gugamal National Park. At Serial Number

146 reference was made to Compartment No.36 indicating an area of 280

Hectares 7 R as falling within the said National Park. Though the total

area of Compartment No.36 was 336 Hectares 3 R an area admeasuring

55 Hectares 6 R was under cultivation in Pastalai village and hence only

280 Hectares 7 R was shown in Compartment No.36. Thereafter on

08.08.2000 the Revenue and Forest Department issued another

notification in exercise of powers under Section 35(4) of the Act of 1972

specifying the limits of the area that was to comprise the National Park to

be known as Gugamal National Park. At Serial Number 1 in the

statement showing the areas included in the said National Park reference

was made to Compartment No.36 Part indicating area of 256 Hectares 42

R to be included in the said National Park. On the basis of these two

notifications it was submitted that only a part of Compartment No.36 was

reserved forest area to the extent of 256 Hectares 42 R.

Reference was also made to the notification dated 15.02.1994

issued by the Revenue and Forest Department declaring the area specified

in the Schedule as a Wild Life Sanctuary to be known as Melghat Tiger

Sanctuary. After referring to an earlier notification dated 05.09.1985 it

was stated in the notification dated 15.02.1994 that the State

Government had decided to alter the boundaries of Melghat Tiger WP 3261-20 4 Judgment

Sanctuary by reducing the existing area and adding new areas for the

purposes of Section 18 and 26A of the Act of 1972 as amended. By the

said notification additional area of the reserved forest was declared

alongwith the intention of the State Government to constitute non-forest

area as specified. At Serial Number 1 reference was made to

Compartment No.36 indicating the reserved forest area to be 256

Hectares 42 R. At Annexure-III various survey numbers from

Compartment No.36 were mentioned to indicate an area admeasuring 79

Hectares 8 R as falling in the non-forest area that was proposed to be

included in the intended Melghat Tiger Sanctuary. Thereafter on

06.11.2000 another notification under Section 26 of the Act of 1972 came

to be issued. The same was for the purpose of indicating the overlapping

part of the reserved forest area at Melghat Tiger Sanctuary that had been

declared as part of Gugamal National Park for being excluded from the

limits of Melghat Sanctuary. Compartment No.36 however was not

mentioned therein. It was thus submitted that the non-reserved forest

area of Compartment No.36 did not fall within the limits of any protected

area. It was therefore clear that the lands with which the petitioners were

concerned did not fall within the limits of any protected area and

therefore it could not become part of any core or critical tiger habitat. For

said reason the petitioners could not have been sought to be relocated.

Since no acquisition proceedings were initiated after the recognition of

the rights of individuals and the community over the land in question as WP 3261-20 5 Judgment

required by Section 24 of the Act of 1972, it was clear that these lands

stood excluded from the limits of the sanctuary. No alteration in the

boundaries of the sanctuary could be effected in the absence of

recommendation of the National Board. For these reasons it was

submitted that as the lands in question did not fall within any protected

area the respondents had no authority to displace the petitioners.

(b) It was urged that even if it was accepted that the lands of the

petitioners fell within the limits of the protected area, the pre-conditions

laid down under Section 38V of the Act of 1972 had not been followed.

Notification dated 27.12.2007 had been issued to indicate areas of

National Park and Sanctuaries as Critical Tiger Habitat. Under provisions

of Section 36V(5) it was necessary to recognize and determine the rights

and acquisition of lands or various rights of scheduled tribes. Without

undertaking such exercise and without settling the claims under the

Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of

Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Act of 2006') the petitioners were

being forcibly removed from their lands on the ground that the area had

been declared as a Critical Tiger Habitat. Before evicting the petitioners it

was necessary to have undertaken the aforesaid exercise and after

complying with various pre-conditions as prescribed under Section

38V(5) of the Act of 1972. On this count, the forcible removal of the

petitioners merely on the ground that the area had been declared as a

Critical Tiger Habitat was thus illegal.

WP 3261-20 6 Judgment

(c) The claims of the petitioners for determining community forest

rights under the Act of 2006 were kept pending and without adjudicating

those claims the petitioners were being evicted. Referring to various

provisions of the Act of 2006 it was submitted that various existing rights

of Forest Dwellers came to be formally recognized with the enactment of

the Act of 2006. These rights were in the nature of Community Forest

Rights as well as Individual Forest Rights. Section 3 thereof recognize

such rights and under Section 4(5) of the Act of 2006 eviction of forest

dwelling communities could not have been undertaken unless the process

of recognition and verification of claims was completed. The notification

dated 28.02.2018 issued under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Project

Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act of 1999')

came to be issued before completion of the process of settlement of forest

rights which was in breach of Section 4(5) of the Act of 2006. Without

there being any final decision on the claims for community forest rights

the aforesaid notification had been issued. Reference was also made to

the order dated 04.06.2021 passed by the Divisional Level Forest Rights

Committee to urge that settlement of the claims for determination of

forest rights was necessary prior to relocation of the village. On this

count also the impugned action was illegal.

(d) The notification under Section 11 of the Act of 1999 pursuant to

which relocation of the villagers of Pastalai was sought to be carried out

had been issued without following the procedure prescribed under the Act WP 3261-20 7 Judgment

of 1999. No public notice as contemplated by Section 13 of the Act of

1999 inviting objections and suggestions with regard to the lands

proposed to be included in affected zones came to be issued. Merely by

publishing a notification under Section 11 the petitioners were sought to

be relocated without following the prescribed procedure. The petitioners

as well as other villagers were being harassed and coerced by the forest

officials to leave the village pursuant to the publication of the notification

dated 28.02.2018. Reference was made to various annexures to the writ

petition to indicate the manner in which the petitioners and especially the

petitioner nos.5 and 6 were not being permitted to lead their life

peacefully at the village. Despite directions being issued by the superior

authorities harassment of the petitioner continued. It was further

submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner nos.5 and 6 were

residents of village Pastalai their claim was being denied by alleging that

they were not the residents of the said village. They had been implicated

in unnecessary offences despite the fact that they had not breached any

law.

On the basis of aforesaid contentions it was submitted by the

learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the petitioners were

being unlawfully evicted from village Pastalai which did not fall within

the limits of any protected area under the Act of 1972. In any event the

petitioners could not be evicted without first determining their rights and

acquiring the same in accordance with law. On these counts it was WP 3261-20 8 Judgment

submitted that the impugned action at the behest of the respondents was

liable to be set aside and the petitioners were entitled for the reliefs as

prayed for in the writ petition.

4. In reply, it was submitted by Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents that the respondents

did not violate any statutory provisions as alleged by the petitioners.

Reference was made to the affidavit on record to urge that the relocation

of the entire village had been undertaken in the prescribed manner and it

was only the petitioner nos.1 to 4 who were opposing such relocation

without any justification. The petitioner nos.5 and 6 had no legal right

whatsoever to pursue the claim as made on their behalf. In that regard it

was submitted as under:-

(a) Village Pastalai fell within the de-reserved (non-forest area) to the

extent of 79 Hectares 88 R. Inviting attention to the notification dated

15.02.1994 it was submitted that village Pastalai was indicated in the

non-forest area intended to be declared as Sanctuary. This area had not

been excluded by issuing any subsequent notification as claimed by the

petitioners. Inviting attention to the notification dated 27.12.2007

notifying Melghat Tiger Sanctuary, Gugamal National Park alongwith

other Wild Life Sanctuaries as Critical Tiger Habitat of Melghat Tiger

Reserve it was submitted that as per said notification the total area for

Melghat Tiger Reserve was indicated to be 1150 Hectares 03 Square WP 3261-20 9 Judgment

Kilometers. This included the de-reserved (non-forest area) admeasuring

79 Hectares 88 R. Non-Forest area of village Pastalai was included

therein and hence it fell within the critical tiger habitat as indicated by

the map placed on record. It was thus clear that village Pastalai could not

be said to have been excluded from the area of the sanctuary as urged by

the petitioners. Based on the aforesaid, the respondents were justified in

taking the stand that the said village fell within de-reserved (non-forest

area) of the Melghat Wild Life Sanctuary.

(b) It was denied that the pre-conditions as required to be complied

with under Section 38V(5) of the Act of 1972 had not been duly complied

with. It was submitted that the Range Forest Officer had a statutory duty

under the Act of 1972 to regulate and control ingress in the tiger reserve

area. On 02.05.2017 the Gram Sabha of village Pastalai passed a

resolution and accepted relocation of the village at Bhugaon, Taluka

Achalpur, District Amravati. However since village Bhugaon was acquired

by the Irrigation Department for construction of a reservoir, the Gram

Sabha of village Pastalai passed another resolution on 04.05.2018 and

agreed to be relocated at village Yeola, Taluka Achalpur, District Amravati.

It was found that as per Government Resolution dated 03.11.2012 and as

scrutinized by the District Rehabilitation Committee there were about 154

eligible families out of which 148 families had been rehabilitated and

relocated at village Yeola. The petitioners however continued to reside at

village Pastalai. It was asserted that the procedure for relocation had WP 3261-20 10 Judgment

been followed as per various Government Resolutions as well as the

guidelines issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority. The

rights of the petitioner nos.5 and 6 were also considered by the District

Rehabilitation Committee which rejected the same after scrutiny. It was

thus submitted that after following the prescribed procedure the activity

of relocation of the villagers has been undertaken. The claim made by the

petitioners was not liable to be accepted.

(c) It was denied that the claim for community forest rights was kept

pending and despite that the petitioners were being evicted. Inviting

attention to the certificate dated 21.02.2018 issued by the Collector and

Chairman of the District Level Forest Rights Committee it was submitted

that no claims were pending either at the Sub-Divisional Level or the

District Level. After all such claims were decided a notification under

Section 11(1) of the Act of 1999 came to be issued on 28.02.2018. As per

the said notification the activity of rehabilitation had been carried out.

Reference was also made to the order dated 09.04.2021 that was issued

by the Divisional Level Committee in the matter of determination of such

community rights. On that basis it was urged that no claims whatsoever

as alleged by the petitioners were pending. The petitioners were being

rehabilitated only after determination of all such rights.

(d) It was denied that the notification dated 28.02.2018 that was

issued under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1999 was without following the

prescribed procedure. Based on the certificate dated 28.02.2018 issued WP 3261-20 11 Judgment

by the Collector further steps had been taken for issuance of such

notification under Section 11(1) of the said Act. It was also denied that

the petitioners were being harassed unnecessarily. On the contrary,

despite resolution being passed by the Gram Sabha, the petitioner nos.1

to 4 were not willing to get themselves rehabilitated. As regards the

petitioner nos.5 and 6, it was asserted that they were not residents of

village Pastalai and this was clear from various documents placed on

record. Their claims were considered and rejected by the District Level

Committee. The contentions raised in that regard were not liable to be

accepted.

On the basis of aforesaid submissions, it was urged that none of

the challenges raised by the petitioners deserved acceptance. The writ

petition was without any merit and it was liable to be rejected.

5. AS TO POINT NO.(a):- We have heard the learned counsel for

the parties at length and with their assistance we have perused the

documentary material placed on record. The principal challenge raised

by the petitioners is that the lands occupied by them in village Pastalai did

not fall within the limits of any protected area and therefore the

respondents had no authority to displace the petitioners. For considering

this ground of challenge, it would be necessary to first refer to the various

notifications that have been issued concerning village Pastalai. Initially

on 25.06.1970 a notification under Section 27(1) of the Act of 1927 was WP 3261-20 12 Judgment

issued by the Revenue and Forest Department of the State Government.

By the said notification, areas referred to in the said notification which

were declared to be reserved forest of Class-A were held to cease to be

reserved forests from the date of said notification. In partial modification

of the notification dated 25.06.1970, another notification was issued on

17.06.1987. By that notification area to be de-reserved in various villages

in Amravati District was specified. Insofar as village Pastalai is concerned

land admeasuring 79 Hectares 88 R was de-reserved. The notification

stood amended from 25.06.1979. Thereafter on 27.11.1987 the Revenue

and Forest Department issued another notification in exercise of powers

conferred by Section 35(1) and (2) of the Act of 1972 thereby declaring

its intention to constitute the areas specified as a National Park to be

known as Gugamal National Park. Insofar as Compartment No.36

concerning village Pastalai is concerned, the same was shown in

Annexure-IV as area that was proposed to be included in the proposed

National Park. The extent of land was 280 Hectares 7 R. Though the

total area of Compartment No.36 was 336 Hectares 3 R, land

admeasuring 55 Hectares 6 R was under cultivation. By this notification

dated 22.11.1987 the Revenue and Forest Department declared its

intention that amongst other lands Compartment No.36 was proposed to

be included in the proposed Gugamal National Park.

On 15.02.1994 yet another notification was issued by the Revenue

and Forest Department by referring to an earlier notification dated WP 3261-20 13 Judgment

05.09.1985 declaring the area specified in the Schedule as a Wildlife

Sanctuary to be known as Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary. By the notification

dated 15.02.1994 additional area of reserved forest alongwith declaration

of intention of the Government to constitute non-forest areas specified in

Annexure-III as Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary was indicated. Insofar as

Compartment No.36 is concerned it was referred to in Annexure-I as area

falling within deemed sanctuary. Certain survey numbers from

Compartment No.36 were also mentioned in Annexure-III being details of

non-forest area that were proposed to be included in the intended

Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary. The total area indicated was 79 Hectares 8

R. This notification therefore clearly indicates that while the area

admeasuring 256 Hectares 42 R was part of deemed sanctuary, area

admeasuring 79 Hectares 8 R which was non-forest area was proposed to

be included in the intended Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary.

6. Thereafter on 08.08.2000 the Revenue and Forest Department

issued another notification in exercise of powers conferred by Section

35(4) of the Act of 1972 specifying the limits of the area that was to

comprise a National Park to be known as Gugamal National Park. Part of

Compartment No.36 admeasuring 256 Hectares 42 R was included

therein. On 06.11.2000 yet another notification was issued by the said

Department wherein it was noted that overlapping part of the reserved

forest of Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary which had been declared as part of WP 3261-20 14 Judgment

Gugamal National Park was required to be excluded from the limits of

Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary. There is however no reference to

Compartment No.36 herein.

From the aforesaid notifications it becomes clear that the non-

forest area intended to be declared as a sanctuary pursuant to the

notification dated 15.02.1994 has not been excluded by issuing any

further notification. The position as indicated by the notification dated

27.11.1987 insofar as Compartment No.36 is concerned continues to

operate wherein the intention to constitute the area specified as Gugamal

National Park has been declared. It is also seen from the material on

record that village Pastalai falls within the de-reserved (non-forest area)

admeasuring 79 Hectares 88 R as per the notification dated 15.02.1994.

Critical Tiger Habitat of Melghat Tiger Reserve is stated to be an area

covering 1150.03 Square Kilometers of Gugamal National Park and

Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary. The total area as indicated being 1150.03

Square Kilometers the map placed on record clearly indicates that village

Pastalai falls within that area. It is therefore found that the said village

cannot be said to be excluded from the protected area as urged by the

petitioners in view of the fact that the non-forest area proposed to be

included in the intended Melghat Wildlife Sanctuary as shown by

Annexure-III of the notification dated 15.02.1994 has not undergone any

change whatsoever. For these reasons, we do not find that the stand of

the petitioners that village Pastalai and especially the lands occupied by WP 3261-20 15 Judgment

the petitioners do not fall within any protected area can be accepted. It is

held that the lands in question fall within the de-reserved (non-forest

area) to the extent of 79 Hectares 88 R.

7. AS TO POINT NOS.(b) TO (d) :- Since the petitioners urged that

they are not liable to be displaced from village Pastalai without complying

with the statutory requirements as prescribed under the Act of 1972 and

their rehabilitation pursuant to the notification dated 28.02.2018 issued

under Section 11 of the Act of 1999 is without following the prescribed

procedure, these aspects are being considered together. It is seen that the

Revenue and Forest Department has issued Government Resolution dated

03.11.2012 thereby prescribing the modality of re-settlement of families

that are affected by virtue of formation of sanctuaries and national parks.

Under the said Government Resolution, two modes of rehabilitation have

been prescribed. As per Option (1), villages affected are entitled to be

rehabilitated in the manner prescribed by the Act of 1999. On a

resolution being passed by the Gram Sabha each family is entitled to

monetary compensation of Rupees Ten Lakhs. When Option (1) is

exercised, the process contemplated by Sections 13 to 19 of the Act of

1999 is not required to be followed. As per Option (2), rehabilitation in

accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1999 is prescribed by

allotting alternate land in that regard. In that case, the provisions of

Sections 13 to 19 of the Act of 1999 are required to be followed. It is WP 3261-20 16 Judgment

seen that initially on 02.05.2017 the Gram Sabha of village Pastalai

passed a resolution indicating its willingness to be rehabilitated at Mouza

Bhugaon, Taluka Achalpur, District Amravati. However on finding that

said area was to be part of submergence of an irrigation project, the Gram

Sabha on 04.05.2018 passed another resolution for being rehabilitated at

Mouza Yeola, Taluka Achalpur, District Amravati. Pursuant thereto such

rehabilitation at village Yeola has been undertaken. In paragraph xxviii of

the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 it has

been stated that of the 148 families entitled for relocation and

rehabilitation, 125 families had chosen Option (1) while 23 families had

opted for Option (2). These figures have not been disputed by the

petitioners. It is to be noted that on 12.10.2015 another Government

Resolution came to be issued in the matter of rehabilitation of families

affected by declaration of areas to form part of sanctuaries and national

parks. As per this notification, additional benefit admissible under the

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the Act of 2013')

was also recognized.

8. It is to be noted that on 28.02.2018 the Divisional Commissioner,

Amravati Division, Amravati issued a notification under Section 11(1) of

the Act of 1999 making the provisions of the Act of 1999 applicable to

village Pastalai, Taluka Chikhaldara, District Amravati. The District WP 3261-20 17 Judgment

Rehabilitation Committee, Amravati thereafter identified 154 families out

of 192 individuals in the preliminary survey of village Pastalai to be

entitled to such benefit. Of the 154 families, 148 eligible families were

relocated at Mouza Yeola and Wadgaon Taluka Fattepur, Achalpur, District

Amravati except the petitioners. Insofar as the petitioner nos.1 to 4 are

concerned, they have been found entitled to such benefits and they fall

within the 154 eligible families. Insofar as the petitioner nos.5 and 6 are

concerned, they have not been found so eligible. Their claims were

scrutinized by the District Rehabilitation Committee which however

rejected the same on 04.06.2019. The petitioner nos.5 and 6 re-

submitted their claims and on re-examination, they were not found

eligible. This rejection of claim is dated 08.02.2021. We find from the

documents on record that there is a serious dispute as regards entitlement

of the petitioner nos.5 and 6 to the benefits of relocation which benefits

have been granted to 154 families of village Pastalai. The said claims of

the petitioner nos.5 and 6 would require adjudication in the manner

prescribed by the Act of 1999. We also find that in paragraph 81 of the

submissions filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 2, 5 and 6, a

categorical statement has been made that even today the said

respondents are willing to give the requisite option to the petitioner nos.1

to 4 as given to other 148 families who have been rehabilitated. The said

petitioners however have not indicated their interest accordingly. The

said statement made is accepted as a statement made to the Court.

WP 3261-20 18 Judgment

9. It is to be noted that initially the Sub-Divisional Level Committee

considered the Community Forest Rights of village Pastalai and did not

find any merit in such claims. Thereafter the Collector on 21.02.2018

issued a certificate stating therein that no individual claims seeking forest

rights from villages Pastalai and Dolar were pending either with the Sub-

Divisional Level Committee or the District Forest Rights Committee,

Amravati. At this stage, it is also necessary to refer to the order dated

09.04.2021 passed by the Divisional Forest Rights Committee, Amravati in

the appeal preferred by the Gram Sabha of village Pastalai. By that order

it has been noted that the Community Forest Rights as determined were

required to be granted in terms of Section 42(3) of the Act of 2013 and

necessary steps in that regard including framing of rules was being

undertaken at the Government level. On such amount of compensation

towards Community Forest Rights being determined the claims of said

villagers were liable to be accepted. It was further observed that on

account of grant of such compensation, no rights on the land could be

enjoyed by the said villagers. This order dated 09.04.2021 that has been

passed during pendency of the present proceedings continues to operate

and hence the parties are bound by the same unless the said order is

modified in appropriate proceedings. Insofar as the submission based on

the provisions of Section 38V(5) of the Act of 1972 is concerned, there

are no specific pleadings raised in the writ petition in that regard to

enable examination of the same.

WP 3261-20 19 Judgment

From the aforesaid material therefore we find that the claims of

the petitioners have been considered in accordance with law. While the

petitioner nos.1 to 4 have been found entitled to the benefit of

rehabilitation which benefit has been extended to about 148 families from

the eligible 154 families, the claim of the petitioner nos.5 and 6 cannot be

adjudicated in the present proceedings and it would be necessary for

them to have their rights determined in the manner prescribed by the Act

of 1972 and the Act of 1999.

10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is held that the lands

concerning the petitioners at village Pastalai, Taluka Chikhaldara, District

Amravati fall within the non-forest area as proposed to be included in the

intended Melghat Sanctuary and hence the declaration sought by the

petitioners cannot be granted. It would be open for the petitioner nos.1

to 4 to avail the benefits of rehabilitation in terms of Government

Resolutions dated 03.11.2012 and 12.10.2015 as extended to 148

families of the said village in terms of the statement made in paragraph

81 of the submissions filed by the respondent nos.1, 2, 5 and 6. The

petitioner nos.5 and 6 are free to have their rights of entitlement to such

benefits determined in accordance with law. The respondents shall

comply with the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by the Divisional Level

Forest Rights Committee in accordance with law.

 WP 3261-20                            20                         Judgment

11.    The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.             Rule

accordingly. No costs.



       (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)     (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)



APTE




                                                 Signed By: Digitally signed
                                                 byROHIT DATTATRAYA
                                                 APTE
                                                 Signing Date:10.11.2022 18:07