Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kisan Sangharsh Samiti vs Union Of India on 27 October, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13454/2018
Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, Having Its Office At Sumerpur, District-
Pali (Raj.) Through Its President Mr. Jayendra Singh S/o Brig Hari
Singh, Aged 60 Years, Resident Of Village- Galthani, Post- Jawai
Bandh, Distt- Pali, 306126.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Director, Ministry Of
Environment, Forests And Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi- 110 003
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Forest, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
3. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, (Hoff), Aranya
Bhawan, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jaipur.
4. Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest And Child
Wild Life Warden, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. District Collector, Pali, Rajasthan.
6. Sub Divisional Officer, Bali, District- Pali, Rajasthan.
7. Deputy Conservator Of Forest (Wildlife), Badi Road,
Devali, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pratyushi Mehta for
Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, ASG assisted
by Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment / Order
27/10/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Samiti
challenging the Notification dated 15.06.2018 whereby, the State
(2 of 2) [CW-13454/2018]
Government has declared land ad-measuring 6198.89 Hect.
mentioned in Schedule-I and in Schedule-II as "Jawai Dam
Leopard Conservation Reserve-II" while exercising the power
under Section 36-A of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act of 1972")
The principle ground for challenging the above referred
Notification taken in the writ petition is that the petitioner- Samiti
and other affected persons have not been provided any
opportunity of hearing and they have not been consulted before
notifying the area as Leopard Conservation Reserve as per the
mandate under Section 36-A of the Act of 1972.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of
respondent-State wherein, certificates of concerned Gram
Panchayats have been annexed with certifying that before issuing
impugned Notification, the concerned Gram Panchayats were
consulted.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a
position to dispute the fact that the concerned Gram Panchayats
have been consulted by the State Government before issuing the
impugned Notification.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, We do not find
any force in the challenge made by the petitioner- Samiti to the
impugned Notification.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Surabhii/83-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
