Allowed

Jagan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2021WRIC/16476/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside eviction orders passed by the prescribed and appellate authorities under the Indian Forest Act. The court held that the proceedings were vitiated as a survey report was relied upon ex-parte without serving notice on the petitioner, violating natural justice. The matter was remitted for a fresh survey in the petitioner's presence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 19.03.2019 and 05.02.2021 set aside. Matter remitted to prescribed authority for fresh survey and proceedings in compliance with natural justice, preferably within six months.

Jagan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16476 of 2021 Petitioner :- Jagan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Dubey, Kamini Pandey (Dubey) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶3

By the impugned order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the prescribed authority in purported exercise of powers under Section 61B(2) of the Indian Forest Act in Eviction Case No. 4149 of 2017-18, Regional Forest Officer Vs. Jagan Singh, directing the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed parcel of lands which are comprised in a notified forest area. The appellate authority by its judgment rendered on 05.02.2021 in appeal No. 01 of 2020-2021, Jagan Singh Vs. Divisional Collector Social Forestry, Agra, agreed with the findings of the prescribed authority and affirmed its order.

¶4

Learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions in the matter. The instructions are available with the learned Standing Counsel and are taken in the record.

¶5

Ms. Kamini Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority overlooks the fact that the impugned order passed by the prescribed authority is based on survey report and demarcation of land made by forest officials. The petitioner was never associated with the aforesaid survey. The survey report was ex-parte to the petitioner and the same was never served upon the petitioner. The petitioner was disabled from tendering and effecting defence of his case

¶6

before the prescribed authority. The procedure adopted by the prescribed authority while passing the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. The appellate authority failed to redeem the illegalities committed by the prescribed authority and after agreeing with the findings of the prescribed authority simply affirmed its judgement .

¶7

The fact that the survey report was ex-parte to the petitioner and was relied upon by both the courts below could not be disputed by the learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions. The instructions also do not dispute the fact that survey report was not served upon the petitioner.

¶8

In wake of the preceding discussion, this Court finds that the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the prescribed authority as well as the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the appellate authority have been passed by adopting the procedure not known to law. The authorities below have violated principles of natural justice to the prejudice of the petitioner. The orders passed by both the courts below are vitiated and are contrary to law.

¶9

The order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the prescribed authority as well as the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the appellate authority are liable to be set aside and are set aside.

¶10

The petitioner before this Court undertakes to cooperate in the survey proceedings as well as the proceedings before the court below.

¶11

Matter is remitted to the prescribed authority with the following directions:

¶12

The prescribed authority shall commence the

¶13

proceedings under Section 61B of the Indian Forest Act, afresh.

¶14

The prescribed authority shall cause a fresh survey/demarcation of the disputed parcel of land to be conducted by the officials in the presence of the petitioner.

¶15

The survey report shall be served upon the petitioner and the opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to raise objection to the survey report.

¶16

4.The prescribed authority while deciding the matter finally shall consider the objection of the petitioner against the survey report if any as per law.

¶17

The prescribed authority shall finally decide the matter preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. The same shall be decided by the prescribed authority as per law and consistent with the observations made above.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶20

Order Date :- 27.9.2021 Dhananjai

Jagan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagan Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhullar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Uma Devi Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shipra Krishna Vista Residents Welfare Association Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Othrs

Nandkeshwar Nath Tiwari Vs Regional Office of Central Board of Secratary Education and Another