Uttarakhand High Court
Sobat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 5 June, 2025
2025:UHC:4556-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA
05TH JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 330 OF 2025
Sobat Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Posti, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned
Standing Counsel.
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.)
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is calling in question the
proceedings initiated against him under Section 61-A of the
Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the Uttaranchal
Amendment Act, 2001, under which the petitioner was
evicted from the piece of land measuring 0.0060 hectare,
wherein the petitioner was having his livelihood by putting
up a temporary shed and selling tea with the permissive
possession of the Forest Department and he was regularly
paying the lease rent. In support of his submission, he
would place reliance on Annexure-3.
3. Annexure-3 reads as under:-
2025:UHC:4556-DB
"This is hereby certified that Mr. Balbeer Singh of
Dhotidhar had deposited the challan for license."
4. On a query as to whether any proceedings have
been drawn up by the Competent Authority or Licensing
Authority leasing out the piece of land or permitting him to
occupy and run business in that piece of land, which
admittedly, is a Forest Land, and that too, Reserved Forest.
5. The law in this regard is no more res integra. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in any number of decisions has upheld
the binding effect of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation
Act, 1980. The document, i.e. so called rent receipt relied
upon by learned Senior Counsel, is dated 12.07.1998.
6. Apparently, the petitioner is unable to place
before this Court any proceedings which tantamount to
compliance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. In the absence of such permission
under Section 2, any occupation on the Forest land or any
proceedings, even if drawn, by the officers of the State
Forest Department without clearance under Section 2 are,
per se, illegal.
7. In that view of the matter, the instant writ
petition is highly misconceived and unsustainable, and is
2025:UHC:4556-DB
accordingly, rejected.
8. The dismissal of the writ petition will not come in
the way of the petitioner to agitate his rights against the
order dismissing his appeal.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
________________
G. NARENDAR, C.J.
_____________
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Dt: 05th June, 2025
NISHANT
NISHANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc
00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001,
KUMAR
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC6
3A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2025.06.09 10:38:57 +05'30'
