Gauhati High Court
Mahabhirab Sarbajanin Krishak ... vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 27 April, 2023
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010027532023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/722/2023
MAHABHIRAB SARBAJANIN KRISHAK PUM SAMITTEE
REP. BY THE SECRETARY ,
DIGANTA SINGHA, AGE- 49 YRS,
S/O- LATE PADMAKANTA SINGHA, R/O- VILLAGE KALIBARI CHUK,
P.O- KALIBARI, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06
2:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NAGAON WILDLIFE DIVISION AS WELL AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
KAZIRANGA TIGER PROJECT
KATIMARA
NAGAON
PIN-782002
3:REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TEZPUR
SONITPUR
PIN-784001
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
Page No.# 2/6
TEZPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
TEZPUR
PIN-78400
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST
Linked Case : WP(C)/1537/2023
MAHABHAIRAB SARBAJANIN KRISHAK PUM SAMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DIGANTA SINGHA
AGE-49 YEARS
S/O LATE PADMAKANTASINGHA
R/ VILL-KALIBARI CHUK
P.O.-KALIBARI
DIST-SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784001
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
2:DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
NAGAON WILDLIFE DIVISION
AS WELL AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
KAZIRANGA TIGER PROJECT
KATIMARA
NAGAON
PIN-782002
3:REVENUE DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06
Page No.# 3/6
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TEZPUR
SONITPUR
PIN-784001
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
TEZPUR REVENUE CIRCLE
TEZPUR
PIN-784001
------------
Advocate for : MR. P MAHANTA
Advocate for : SC
FOREST appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
27.04.2023
Heard Shri P Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri D
Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department, Assam.
While the first writ petition, being WP(C)/722/2023 has been filed by the
petitioner against a notice dated 25.01.2023 issued by the Divisional Forest Officer,
Nagaon Wildlife Division, in the second writ petition, WP(C)/1537/2023, the petitioner
has challenged a speaking order dated 09.03.2023 passed in terms of an order dated
03.03.2023 passed by this Court in the first writ petition whereby, liberty was given to
the petitioner to submit a representation which was directed to disposed of.
The petitioner in both the writ petitions is a Samittee and claims that its
members are flood affected persons and are residing in a plot of vast vacant land at
Lonke Tapu & Bachamari under the Tezpur Revenue Circle.
It is the case of the petitioner that long back, there was a move to evict the
members from the plot of land in question for which a writ petition was filed in this
Court, being Civil Rule No.2655/1998. The said matter was disposed of vide order
Page No.# 4/6
dated 14.08.2006 by directing consideration of the case of the petitioner on a
representation to be submitted and not to disturb the members of the petitioner
Samittee till a decision for rehabilitation was taken. However, by the impugned order
dated 25.01.2023, the members were directed to vacate the said land. It was further
notified that there would be invocation of Sections 27, 29, 31, 32, 33 and 38V of the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
As indicted above, in the first writ petition, pursuant to an order dated
03.03.2023, a representation dated 04.03.2023 was submitted which was disposed of
vide the order dated 09.03.2023 which is the subject matter of challenge in the
second writ petition i.e., WP(C)/1537/2023.
Shri Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
eviction notice as well as the rejection of the representation dated 09.03.2023 are
illegal and liable to be interfered with. He further submits that such action is in
violation of the order passed by this Court in Civil Rule No.2655/1998. Though it is
fairly admitted that the members of the petitioner Samittee have already been evicted,
in the meantime, a prayer was made to allow the petitioner to collect the harvest
mainly, comprising of vegetables which have become ripe in the meantime.
On the other hand, Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department has
raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits
that the petitioner is not a registered Society and is not a legal entity to maintain the
present challenge. He further submits that the order of this Court dated 14.08.2006
will not protect the interest of the petitioner, inasmuch as no representation,
whatsoever was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the said order and therefore,
the present action of eviction cannot be challenged. He also submitted that a larger
public interest is involved, as the area in question has been earmarked for extension
of the Burhachapori Wildlife Sanctuary by addition of an area of about 195 square
kilometres. In support of his submission, Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel places
Page No.# 5/6
reliance upon a judgment passed by an Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Rangapara Development Circle Vs. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in
(2007) 3 GLR 805 wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench had refused to entertain a writ
petition filed by an unregistered body. Shri Gogoi has also disputed the claim that
there are any standing crops or vegetables.
Though the aforesaid preliminary objection was sought to be resisted on behalf
of the petitioner by submitting that on 28.02.2023, an Activity Report was issued by
the competent authority recommending renewal of such registration, Shri Gogoi,
learned Standing Counsel submits that apart from the fact that the said Activity Report
cannot be treated to be a renewal of registration, even the same was issued only after
filing of the writ petition.
Issue Notice of motion, returnable by 4 weeks.
Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents-Forest Department whereas Ms. G Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel,
accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-Revenue Department. Ms. M Barman,
learned Govt. Advocate is present for the State respondents.
Since affidavits have already been exchanged, there is no requirement for
furnishing of extra copies.
Heard the learned counsel on the interim prayer.
Taking the aforesaid facts and circumstances into consideration, including the
preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the writ petition and the
factual disputes, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim order. Though an
alternative prayer was made and an IA(C)/471/2023 has also been filed in this regard,
in view of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 prayer for an interim direction to collect the harvest cannot
be passed and the same is, accordingly rejected.
Page No.# 6/6
Accordingly, list this case after 4 weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
