Disposed

Shimla Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023WRIC/18753/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking recognition of the petitioner as an 'other traditional forest dweller' and consequential benefits under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Court directed the competent authority to examine the claim expeditively within three months without adjudicating the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the competent authority to examine the petitioner's claim and pass appropriate orders within three months from receipt.

Shimla Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others — Land Acquisition | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133019-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18753 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shimla Devi Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.2 to recognise the petitioner as "other traditional forest dweller" as provided in Section 1 (0) of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and further direction to the respondent no.2 to provide consequential benefits of Section 3 of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 to the petitioner.

¶7

It is contended that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the forefather of the petitioner was engaged by Colonials for Taungiya plantation from 1920 and still continued after independence till the enactment of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The petitioner had four brothers, out of which, three brothers have died and one living brother and mother have given no objection in favour of the petitioner for getting forest rights of her father. The claim of the petitioner is to be considered in the light of the Act of 2006 but till date the same has not been decided by the respondent authorities. It is further contended that similar controversy has earlier been raised before this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.56003 of 2017 (Adivasi Vanvasi Maha Sabha, Chandauli v. Union of India & Ors.), which was disposed of on 11.10.2018 leaving it open to the petitioners' association to make individual application under Section 6 of the Act of 2006 for seeking recognition of their forest rights. It was also provided that in case any such application is made, the Gram Sabha/ Authority shall consider the same and take decision in the matter expeditiously and preferably within 12 weeks. Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 29.8.2013 in Writ-C No. 44551 of 2013 (Rameshwar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Ors.), wherein similar controversy has been decided with following observations:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

In view of the submission advanced from both sides and in the light of the facts so stated this court is not to go into the details for disposing this petition, as keeping the matter pending will be futile exercise and that will just delay the finality of the things.

¶10

Petitioner claims protection as provided in The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of various Rights) Act, 2006.

¶11

Accordingly, we need not to go into the merits of the matter so as to record a finding either way but at the same time we propose to dispose of this petition by giving following directions-

¶12

i) Petitioner is to file certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today before the competent authority.

¶13

ii) On receipt of the move it will be the concern of the concerned competent authority to proceed as provided under the Act and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within shortest possible time preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the move.

¶14

iii) It is observed that except in accordance with law there will be no interference in the rights of the petitioner.

¶15

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits as we have not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and thus decision of the concerned competent authority will be his independent exercise as may be permissible in law.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of."

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, has contended that the petitioner being on similar footing is also entitled for similar indulgence.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue and with consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the authority concerned to look into, examine and redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and considering the judgments cited above expeditiously but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.7.2023 Noman

¶21

Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shimla Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shimla Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Krishna Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyanarayan Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Srikant Tyagi and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Narendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lal Chandra Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Neelam Singh Vs Union of India and 6 Others