Uttarakhand High Court
6 June vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 June, 2025
2025:UHC:5002-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA
Writ Petition (M/B) No.350 of 2025
16 June, 2025
Mohammad Baseer --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/B) No.277 of 2025
Mohammad Shafi --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/B) No.278 of 2025
Mohammad Safi --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/B) No.279 of 2025
Gulam Rasool --Petitioner
Versus
1
2025:UHC:5002-DB
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/B) No.280 of 2025
Abdul Rahman --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/B) No.288 of 2025
Mohammad Fareed --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/B) No.289 of 2025
Mohammad Baseer --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
With
Writ Petition (M/B) No.354 of 2025
Mohammad Rafi --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
2
2025:UHC:5002-DB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Ms. Tanupriya Joshi, learned for the petitioners.
Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. along with Mr. Yogesh Tiwari,
learned Standing Counsel for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned C.S.C. for the State.
2. In all the writ petitions, similar rights are
claimed but in different parcels of land in the same area.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Van
Gujjar and a member of a nomadic forest-dwelling
community with roots tracing back to the ancient times
of the Puranas; that, he has been living in the land in
question since the time of his ancestors and their
residence in that place is traceable to 1929 at least.
That, they have been using the land for grazing their
buffaloes and cattle. That, on the enactment of the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, they had made
applications and the said applications have been
registered in form B and C. That thereafter the Gram
Sabha caused the proceedings on the applications made
2025:UHC:5002-DB
by the petitioners.
4. The Act of 2006 stipulates the consideration of
the application in a particular manner i.e. Rule 4
mandates certain action by the Gram Sabha in the form
of a resolution on the forest rights claimed by the
applicant/interested person and forward the same to the
Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) formed under
the Rules. The SDLC, in turn, headed by Forest Officer of
a Sub Division and an Officer of the equivalent rank and
other members of the committee are required to
examine the veracity of the claims, examine the
correctness of the resolutions passed by the Gram
Sabha and, thereafter, prepare Block or Tehsil wise draft
record of proposed reconciliation of the Government
records and forward the same to the District Level
Committee constituted under Rule 7. The DLC is
consisting of D.M. as the Chairperson and includes the
DFO as a member would thereafter consider the claim
under Rule 8 (c) and grant approval or reject the same.
5. Despite the specific role assigned to the
District Level Committee and the DFO, being a member
of the said District Level Committee, in the instructions
forwarded to the C.S.C., the DFO has thrown up his
2025:UHC:5002-DB
hands and has stated that as the functions are carried
out by the Committee, he is not aware as to whether
any application is made or not. This attitude of the
officer towards the Court cannot be appreciated. Being
the District Level Officer and the Custodian of all the
records at the District Level, a simple inquiry with the
concerned section would have revealed as to whether
any application is pending or not.
6. Be that as it may, the petitioner is claiming a
right under an application said to have been made under
the Act of 2006. The Act consequently mandates certain
consideration in a certain manner. The respondents,
having not discharged their duty, cannot now under the
garb of eviction, attempt to throw out and negate the
rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Act of
2006.
7. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that the instant writ petitions can be
disposed of by restraining the respondents from
attempting to evict the petitioner till consideration and
disposal of his application, as mandated under the Act.
It is made clear that the restraining the respondents not
to evict the petitioner from the land in question, will not
2025:UHC:5002-DB
enable the Petitioner to carry out any commercial
activities, except self cultivation of the lands in question.
8. Writ petitions stand ordered accordingly. There
shall be no order as to costs.
9. This order shall be in in force till the
consideration and disposal of the application in
accordance with law.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 16.06.2025
BS
