Disposed

Amaresh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2025WRIC/7233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking regularisation of land possession under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Without deciding on merits, the Court directed the competent authority to examine the grievance expeditiously after providing opportunity to all stakeholders.

What did the court decide?

Directing the competent authority to examine the petitioner's grievance under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 within three months after giving opportunity to stakeholders.

Amaresh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35495-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7233 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Amaresh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Pandey,Rang Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶7

Present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to the respondents to regularise the possession of Petitioner over land in dispute bearing Khata No. 00271, Khasra No. 856 measuring 4 bigha, situated at Village Devri-May-Devra, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, U.P. under the provisions of "The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Act, 2006" (in short "the Act of 2006") and also in the light of the judgment dated 11.10.2018 passed in Public Interest Litigation No.56003 of 2017 within stipulated period and for a further direction to respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question.

¶8

It is contended that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and has been in cultivatory possession of the land in question for more than three decades. The claim of the petitioner are 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:-

¶9

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

In view of the submission advanced from both sides and in the light of the facts so stated this

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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-

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner may be looked into by the competent authority.

¶21

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 after considering the judgments cited above expeditiously but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stake holders in the matter.

¶22

Sri Pradeep Singh, Advocate has appeared for the respondent no.4-Gaon Sabha.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Noman

¶24

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

Amaresh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaresh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Brajesh Kumar Gautam vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Garvit Sharma vs Union of India and 4 Others

Kaushalya Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rimple Bindra vs Indian Bank and 2 Others

Rajaram Rathor and 4 Others vs District Administrative Committee, Kanpur Dehat and 3 Others

Shrimati Priyanka Kaur Kalara vs Baljeet Singh and Another