Pankaj Choudhary vs State Of Jharkhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4321 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 1949 of 2015
                         ........

Pankaj Choudhary                       ....   ..... Petitioner
                              Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others            ....   ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
                          ............
For the Petitioner       : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate

For the Respondent/State : Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, S.C.-V.

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.-V.

........

16/22.11.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramit Satender and learned counsel for the respondent / State, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, S.C.-V.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land with respect to Mouza - Dhurgargi, Thana No. 390, Plot No. 6, area - 1.92 acres has been settled by the State of Bihar / Jharkhand to Gopal Rai and Gajadhar Rai. The petitioner - Pankaj Choudhary being the lessee of the lease holder Gajadhar Rai has sought permission from the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand to do mining work over the settled land of Gajadhar Rai, who has executed lease in favour of the petitioner.

Thereafter, the petitioner received letter no. 1974/M dated 26.07.2011 issued under the signature of the District Mining Officer, Giridih, whereby the petitioner was informed, that the application filed by the petitioner for mining lease has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih vide decision dated 19.07.2011.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of rejection has preferred revision before the Court of Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi vide Revision Case No. 7/2012.

The Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi has rejected the revision application of the petitioner as contained in Memo No. 552/MC Ranchi, dated 20.11.2014 with direction that the D.C., Giridih and DFO, Giridih should make an effort to demarcate the forest land separating the G.M. and private lands, so that the dispute is settled once for all and the area is advertised for settlement of mining

rights in accordance with law and as per provisions laid in Jharkhand Mines Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 11.11.2011 contained in Memo No. 1735 dated 11.11.2011 issued by Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih Forest Plantation Division to the Circle Officer, Jamua, whereby it has been admitted that part of Plot No. 6, Area -1.92 acres has been settled with the Gopal Rai and Gajadhar Rai, but the Government of Bihar Revenue Department Notification No. C/F 17048-54-5197-12 dated 01.12.1954 has declared 5.60 acres of land as Reserved Forest from the Plot No. 6 and as per the Khatian, Plot No. 6 comprises of Total area of 11.75 acres. Thus, it is apparent that 6.15 acres land is the Government land which can be utilized by the raiyats after demarcation of the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure-3 to the writ petition, whereby it has only been stated in Letter No. 1974/M dated 26.07.2011, that only 0.48 acres of Plot No. 6/1 is notified forest area, as such, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that State is itself not clear that in Plot No. 6, out of total area of 11.75 acres, how much land belongs to Government and how much land out of the same belongs to the Department of Forest.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent State has prosecuted the lessee Gajadhar Rai vide Forest Case No. 250/2011 / T.R. No. 1238/17 and in the said case, Kailash Rai, Gajadhar Rai and Gopal Rai, who have been facing trial under the Indian Forest Act, have been acquitted by the competent court in terms of judgment dated 01.09.2017, on the ground that none of the witnesses of the prosecution could able to prove regarding date of the notification nor the notification regarding the land in question was proved by the prosecution as Forest Land in compliance of Section 29 and 31 of Indian Forest Act and also on the ground that no tools for cultivation were seized by the prosecution, neither they have seized the pillar, which they have alleged to be broke by these accused for preparing the cultivation field over the forest land as such, impugned order may be set aside.

Learned counsel for the State, Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, S.C.-V assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Anil Kumar Singh has submitted that detail counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4 on 03.12.2015. Thereafter, supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4 has also been filed on 16.10.2019 and counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 5 has been filed on 24.10.2019 and supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 5 has been filed on 16.12.2019 and again on 15.03.2021, but the factual aspect regarding nature of land is not clear, as such, some time may be granted to verify, whether the settlement made to the Gajadhar Rai and Gopal Rai have been cancelled by following the procedure under law? Whether the initial settlement which was made to the Gajadhar Rai and Gopal Rai was with regard to Government land was not inclusive of the Forest land or Whether the respondent authorities have taken pain while measuring land, as appears from supplementary counter-affidavit filed by respondent no. 5 on 15.03.2021 that land of Gajadhar Rai has been demarcated outside the Government / Forest Land and Whether without cancelling the settlement made by the State of Bihar in favour of the Gajadhar Rai and Gopal Rai, it is a case of high handedness of the respondent State in initiating a proceeding against the Kailash Rai, Gajadhar Rai and Gopal Rai under the Forest Act?

The Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Jharkhand is directed to file an affidavit in person explaining all the details and if it is found that any officer of the State has surpassed the law, he should be duly dealt in accordance with law. The affidavit must be filed within a period of four weeks.

List this case after four weeks.

Let a copy of order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Forest, Environment and Climate Change Department, Government of Jharkhand for compliance.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-