Disposed

Virjhan Alias Virjhan Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023WRIC/35369/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an amendment application correcting a typographical error. In the writ petition, the Court directed the Forest Authorities to decide the pending objection under Section 9/11 of the Indian Forest Act within two months and maintain the status quo on the disputed land until that decision.

What did the court decide?

Directing Forest Authorities to decide Section 9/11 objection within two months and maintain status quo.

Virjhan Alias Virjhan Yadav and 4… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:210717-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35369 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Virjhan Alias Virjhan Yadav And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

Order on the Amendment Application :

¶7

Heard.

¶8

This is an application seeking amendment in the prayer of stay application and in Para 1 and 2 of the writ petition and in the prayer of writ petition also, in place of 'Gata No. 521', Gata No. 551 has been typed. Error is clearly typographical.

¶9

The Amendment Application is allowed. The amendment as prayed for in the application be carried out during course of the day.

¶10

Order on the writ petition :

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶12

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for mandamus commanding the respondents-Forest Authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from Gata No. 508-Ka, area 0.5380 and Gata No. 521, area 0.400 hectare, situated in Village- Kharpathar, Pargana & Tehsil- Dudhi, DistrictSonbhadra till disposal of Suit No. NIL of 2020 filed on 25.06.2020 seeking remedy under Section 9/11 of Indian Forest Act pending before Forest Settlement Officer, Obra, Sonbhadra.

¶13

The petitioners claim that they belong to Other Backward Category and when the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act was issued, the petitioners were not given any notice, therefore, they could not file objections before the Forest Settlement Officer, however, when they came to know about the said proceeding, they have filed a Suit before the Forest Settlement Officer bearing Suit No. NIL of 2020, under Section 9/11 of Indian Forest Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners makes a statement at bar

¶15

that till date Notification under Section 20 of the Act has not been issued and in support of his submission has placed reliance on order dated 23.08.2022 passed by coordinate bench of this Court in Writ-C No.20807 of 2022 (Male vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) and prays that similar indulgence may be accorded to the petitioners.

¶16

The Court is, therefore, of the view that if the notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act has not been made till date, the objection under Section 9/11 of the Indian Forest Act be decided expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy unless there is any legal impediment.

¶17

For a period of two months or till the disposal of the objection filed under Section 9/11 of the Indian Forest Act whichever is earlier, status quo as of today shall be maintained, qua to the disputed land.

¶18

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶19

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Rama Kant

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAMAKANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Virjhan Alias Virjhan Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virjhan Alias Virjhan Yadav and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Anita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Asha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Shyam Singh and 18 Others Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Sundar Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kiran Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lokendra Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others