Deep Narayan Manjhi vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3056 Jhar

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                          WP(C) No. 3306 of 2020
                                    -------

1. Deep Narayan Manjhi, son of late Lekha Manjhi;

2. Latan Ganjhu, son of late Lalu Ganjhu;

3. Gopal Ganjhu, son of late Misri Ganjhu;

All resident of village and PO Banjhi, PS Mandu, District Ramgarh.

4. Rameshwar Sahu, son of late Shiv Shankar Sahu, resident of village Charhi, PO & PS Charhi, District Hazaribag;

5. Yodheshwar Singh Bhogta, son of late Talo Ganjhu, resident of village Fakodih, PO Banji, PS Mandu, District Ramgarh;

6. Mahendra Ganjhu, son of late Sohar Ganjhu;

7. Charka Ganjhu son of late Barhan Ganjhu;

Sl. No. 6 to 7 are resident of village & PO Banji, PS Mandu, District Ramgarh.

...... ...... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand, represented through the Secretary, Forest, Environment & Climate Change, PO & PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi;

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh Division, At, PO & PS Ramgarh, District Ramgarh;

3. The Forests Range Officer, Mandu Range, At, PO & PS Mandu, District Ramgarh;

4. The Forester, Mandu, At, PO & PS Mandu, District Ramgarh;

5. The Circle Officer, Mandu, At, PO & PS Mandu, District Ramgarh ...... ...... Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

-------

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate;

Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV

-------

10/ Dated: 05.08.2022 Heard, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned GA-IV appearing on behalf of the respondents- State.

2. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted, that the petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the ancestral lands, which has been settled, measuring an area 18.13 acres from Ramgarh Raj in the year 1944, the description of which is 15.95 acres land of plot No. 479 with boundary:-

North: Parti Kadim South: Parti Kadim

East: Plot No. 527 and

And area 2.18 acres of plot No. 479 with boundary:

South: Parti East: Plot No. 478 and West: Parti Kadim Total 18.13 acres both under Khata No.1 of village Banji, Thana No. 159 of Mandu, the then District Hazaribag now Ramgarh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that after vesting of jamindari, the State of Bihar has also recognized the possession of the ancestor of the petitioners and issued rent receipt in favour of them and after death of the ancestors, the rent receipt was issued in favour of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that in the year 1960-62, some dispute has arisen due to the fact, that the lands which are in exclusive possession of ancestor of the petitioners are being shown in the map of the forest department. The forest officers have started laying claim over the said land, which is in exclusive possession of the ancestors of the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that the ancestors of the petitioners have filed an application before the Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribag for release of the said land from the forest area as shown in the map, in which, the Divisional Forest Officer was made party. The Divisional Forest Officer appeared and filed his reply, which has been brought on record as Annexures-4 & 4/A of the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that on the application of the ancestors of the present petitioners, instituted Case No. 340 of 1962-63, which was concluded vide order dated 08.12.1962 (Annexure-5) and a memo was issued vide Memo No. 131 dated 08.12.1962, whereby the Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribag has been pleased to release the said land in favour of the ancestors of the present petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that the petitioners are in exclusive possession of the said land and they are

paying rent to the State. The rent receipts are being issued in favour of the petitioners by the State, which is annexed as Annexure-6 series to the writ petition, with regard to the year 2005-06, 2002-03, 2001-02 and 1984-85. The same has been uploaded online and the rent receipt was paid for the year 2003-04 and 2005-05 on 27.07.2016 which has been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that the petitioners have approached this Court as the foresters are demanding illegal gratification and even the map has not been corrected, pursuant to the order dated 08.12.1962 passed in Case No. 340 of 1962-63.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that the petitioners have filed rejoinder bring on record, the information provided under Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby it has been admitted by the respondents-State, that 18.13 acres of land under plot Nos.479/1205 and 479/1206 are raiyati land and which is apparent in the map.

10. The respondents-State has filed counter affidavit dated 01.11.2021, sworn by Jiteshwar Singh, Range Forest Officer, Ramgarh whereby reliance has been placed upon the notification dated 02.01.1953. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on 04.08.2022 by Ved Prakash Kamboj, Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh taking a plea in paragraph No.6 which may profitably be quoted hereunder:

"That in counter affidavit dated 24.02.2021 it has been stated due to inadvertence that plot no. 478 and 479 under khata no.1, P.S. no. 159, Village-Banji, PS Mandu, District-Hazaribagh (Now Ramgarh) has been noticed as protected forest. That it is humbly stated and submitted that plot no.479 of village Banji Thana No. 159 is a demarcated forest land as is evident from the demarcation register and map. That the map of demarcated forest land in respect of forest land including said plot no. 479 has been issued by the competent authority after inquiry."

11. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners, has opposed the counter affidavit and submitted that that the forest officers are not following the Court's order in due process. Once a Forest Officer has released the land vide order dated 08.12.1962, in Case No. 340 of 1962-63, which was also forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribag vide Memo No. 131 dated 08.12.1962 and in absence of appeal or revision preferred by the respondent authorities it attains finality. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that the respondent authorities have not

taken proper care in making correction of the forest map which was admittedly of the year 1961 i.e. prior to the order dated 08.12.1962 passed in Case No. 340 of 1962-63 and the same was again certified in the year 1967 without taking note of the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that the petitioners are using the land since the settlement made by the Ramgarh State, thus the respondents have no right to interfere in the same as the order of the Forest Settlement Officer is binding upon the forest officers. Even the State has recognized the petitioners till the year 2006 and shows the name of the petitioners in the land record online on 27.07.2016 and, as such, the action of the respondent authorities is highly deprecable and this Court may pass necessary order against the officers who have filed counter affidavit.

12. Mr. Mithilesh Singh, learned GA-IV appearing on behalf of the respondents-State has submitted, that the officers have filed counter affidavit on the basis of the map. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has further submitted, that the demarcation register has been prepared on the basis of map, as such, the writ petition may be dismissed.

13. Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the forest department has not applied its mind. The Forest Range Officer as well as the Divisional Forest Officer has not filed valid counter affidavit on the basis of materials available on record. This Court has taken cognizance of this matter as because the petitioners have prayed, that pursuant to the order of release of land dated 08.12.1962 passed in Case No.340 of 1962-63 by the Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh, a copy of the same has been sent to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribag vide memo No. 131 dated 08.12.1962, it was incumbent upon the State to make necessary correction in the map of 1961, but they have not made correction in the map. Thus, again they are raising the same dispute, which they have committed earlier by relying upon the map and on the basis of map, demarcation register was prepared. Those two cannot be relied upon in view of the judgment passed by the Forest Settlement Officer in case No. 340 of 1962-63 dated 08.12.1962, which has attained finality.

14. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is hereby allowed.

15. The respondent No.2-Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh is directed to make necessary correction in the map within a period of 60 days.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Madhav/-