Disposed

Illyas Mamu Mohd Yusuf Lakhara v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Nov 2016WP/389/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation challenging State allocation of notified but undeclared proposed forest land for residential use. Court disposed of petitions, holding land deforested and allotment irreversible, but directed State to transfer alternative forest land.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed; no costs awarded; costs deposited to be shared between Legal Aid Sub-Committee and Bar Association.

Illyas Mamu Mohd Yusuf Lakhara Vs the Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.389/2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.1746/2015

¶6

Iliyas Mamu S/o Mohd.Yusuf Lakhara,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Journalist,
R/o Baidpura, Sadar Bazar, Jalna.

¶7

 ..Petitioner..

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

1] The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Forest Department, New Delhi.

¶10

2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶11

3] The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Aurangabad Forest Division,
Aurangabad.

¶12

4] The District Collector, Jalna,
District Jalna.

¶13

5] The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue),
Jalna, District Jalna.
6] The Tahsildar, Jalna,
District Jalna.

¶14

7] The District Forest Officer, Jalna,
District Jalna.

¶15

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶16

- 2 -

¶17

8] Shaikh Kasam S/o Sk.Hasan,
Age:75 years,Occu.Agriculture,
R/o Burhannagar,Ramnagar,Jalna,
District Jalna.

¶18

9] Shaikh Ramzan S/o Shaikh Hasan,
Age:72 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
10] Shaikh Mohd.S/o Shaikh Hasan,
Age:70 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
11] Aslam S/o Shaikh Ramzan,
Age:38 years,Occu: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
12] Abdul Rashid S/o Shaikh Mohd.
Age:35 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
13] Jalan S/o Mohd.Imam,
Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
14] Ibrahim S/o Mohd.Imam,
Age:42 years,Occ: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
15] Kadir S/o Shaikh Ramzan,
Age:36 years,Occ: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
16] Akbar S/o Shaikh Mohd.,
Age:32 years,Occ: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
17] Hadi S/o Shaikh Ramzan,
Age:35 years,Occ: Agriculture,
R/o As above.
18] Vinaykumar S/o Rikhabchand Kothari,
Age: 55 years, Occu: Business,
R/o Near Shivaji Statue,
Opp.Rest House, Jalna.

¶19

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶20

- 3 -

¶21

19] Ayyub Khan S/o Jaan Mohammed Khan
alias Johari Khan,
Age:60 years,Occu.:Business,
R/o Moti Bazar, Mangal Bazar,
District Jalna.

¶22

20] Uaman Khan S/o Rasood Khan,
Age:45 Years,Occ:Business,
R/o: as Above.

¶23

21] Madhukar S/o Kanu Rahtod
Age:45 years,Occ:Medical Practitioner,
R/o Vyankatesh Nagar,Jalna,

¶24

22] Premkishore S/o Ramalal Gondodoya
Age:66 years,Occ:Nil
R/o Kadrabad,
Jalna,District: Jalna.

¶25

23] The Municipal Council,
Jalna, Through its Chief Officer,
Jalna. Dist.Jalna.

¶26

24] Mr.Rajesh S/o Ramkishan Mundada,
Age:44 years,Occu: Business,
R/o SRPF Road, Jalna.
District Jalna.

¶27

 ..Respondents..

¶28

 .....
S/Shri P.R.Patil & Shri S.B.Bhapkar, Advocates for
Petitioner.
Shri S.B.Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General for
Respondent No.1.
Shri S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 7.
Shri S.S.Kazi, Advocate for Respondent Nos.8,10,13,14,15
& 17.
Shri A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for Respondent No.9.
Shri U.R.Awate, Advocate for Applicant in C.A.1746/15.
Shri S.V.Kshirsagar, Advocate with Shri A.S.Deshpande,
Advocate for Intervenor.

¶29

Shri P.N.Kalani, Advocate for Intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------

¶30

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶31

- 4 -

¶32

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.71/2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATIONS NOS.337/2012,1345/2012 & 11691/2014

¶33

Vijay S/o Namdeo Lahane,
Age 25 years, Occu.Reporter of
'Janta Kare Pukar',Jalna,
R/o Nutan Wasahat, Jalna,
Tq. & District Jalna.

¶34

..Petitioner..

¶35

VERSUS

¶36

1] The Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Forest Department,
New Delhi.

¶37

2] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶38

3] Chief Conservator of Forest,
Aurangabad Forest Division,
Aurangabad.

¶39

4] The District Collector,
Jalna, District Jalna.

¶40

5] Sub-Divisional Officer,
Revenue, Jalna,
District Jalna.

¶41

6] The Tahsildar, Jalna,
District Jalna.

¶42

7] The District Forest Officer,
Jalna, District Jalna.

¶43

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶44

- 5 -

¶45

8] Shaikh Jalal Mohd. Imam,
Age: 55 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
R/o Burhannagar, Ramnagar,
Jalna, Tq.& Dist. Jalna.

¶46

9] Jalna Municipal Council,
Jalna. Through its Chief Officer,
Jalna. Dist.Jalna.

¶47

...Respondents..

¶48

.....

¶49

Shri P.V.Barde, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae.
Shri S.B.Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General for
Respondent No.1.

¶50

Shri S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 7.
Shri U.R.Awate, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
None present for Respondent No.9.

¶51

Shri A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for Applicant in CA No.337/2012.
Shri S.V.Kshirsagar, Advocate with Shri Ajay S. Deshpande
Advocate for Applicant in CA Nos.1345/2012 & 11691/2014.

¶52

CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &

¶53

 K.L. WADANE, JJ.

¶54

DATE: 25.11.2016

¶55

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :

¶56

1]The Public Interest Litigation is filed claiming
relief to the extent that the respondent - authorities

¶57

should take over possession of the land bearing Survey

¶58

No.276 situated at Jalna Tq. & Dist.Jalna on the ground

¶59

that the same is protected forest land. Further
directions are sought against the authorities to correct

¶60

- 6 -

¶61

the revenue record of Survey No.276 in the name of the
State Government.

¶62

2] The notices were issued by this Court and on 7.12.2011, ad-interim order was passed directing no further allotment / transfer by any mode be made by the respondent - authorities of the writ land. Thereafter, on 11.1.2012, the petitioner filed an affidavit expressing his desire to withdraw the PIL. This Court negatived the request of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of one week and if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, the Court would consider taking sue motu action against the petitioner. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was thereafter deposited by the petitioner. On 18.1.2012,

¶63

the Court declined to allow the Purshis filed by the petitioner for withdrawal of the petition and this Court appointed Shri P.V. Barde, learned Advocate to act as

¶64

amicus curiae to assist the Court. From time to time, orders were passed by this Court. The affidavits are filed by the officers from the Forest Department so also

¶65

from the Revenue Department. During the pendency of the
PIL, even the measurement was directed to be done. We

¶66

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶67

had asked the District Superintendent of Land Records to

¶68

file an affidavit to explain the details of the
measurement carried out. During the pendency of the
present Public Interest Litigation, intervention
applications are filed by the interested persons. On
10.10.2016, we had directed the learned AGP to file a
detailed affidavit clarifying about the allocation of
alternative land so also clarifying the contents of the
affidavit dated 30.6.2016. Thereafter, a detailed
affidavit has been filed.

¶69

3]Writ Petition No.389/2009 is also in respect of

¶70

the same subject matter wherein the petitioner claims

¶71

similar relief i.e. to cancel the allotment of the

¶72

Government land to the extent of 34 Hectares 90 Aares

¶73

from Gut No.276 in favour of respondent nos.8 to 17

¶74

therein and restore the land to the Government.
Mr.Bhapkar, learned counsel for the petitioner in the

¶75

said writ petition has adopted the arguments of Mr.Barde, learned amicus curiae .

¶76

4]Mr.Barde, learned counsel, has taken us through

¶77

various Government resolutions, provisions of the

¶78

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶79

- 8 -

¶80

Hyderabad Forest Act and the orders passed by the

¶81

Revenue Department from time to time. Mr.Barde, learned
counsel eruditely canvassed that the land bearing Survey
No.276 at Jalna was notified as a forest land under
notification dated 16 Farwardi 1354 Fasli to the extent
of 34 H 90 R. Land Survey No.276 totally admeasures 96 H

¶82

23 R. The same is subsequently bifurcated into Survey
No.276/1 to the extent of 23 H 13 R and Survey No.276/2
admeasuring 2 Acres 10 Gunthas. Mr.Barde, learned
counsel submits that the notification was issued u/s 7 of
the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1326 Fasli notifying the land
under the said notification and within the boundaries

¶83

delineated therein as proposed reserved forest. The same
was to the extent of 34 H 90 R in Survey N.276 at Jalna.

¶84

According to the learned counsel, once the land is

¶85

declared as a proposed reserved forest, the same
continues to be a reserved forest until and unless a
notification is issued for de-forestation of the said
land.

¶86

5]In the present case, no notification is

¶87

published by the Central Government thereby releasing the

¶88

said land from being a proposed reserved forest.

¶89

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶90

- 9 -

¶91

According to the learned counsel, if any person has got a
claim or interest in the land, which is proposed reserved
forest, then that person has to lodge a claim before the
Settlement Officer. No such claims are lodged before the
Settlement Officer. According to the learned counsel,
once a land is declared as a proposed reserved forest, no
activity of whatsoever nature is permissible in the said
land. The Revenue Department in the year 1980 granted
allotment letters in favour of individuals, which is
beyond the authority of the officers of the Revenue
Department. The authorities under the Revenue Department
could not have exercised their powers over the land,
which is a proposed reserved forest. The said allotment
itself is not in tune with the provisions of the Forest
Act.

¶92

6]Mr.Barde, the learned counsel further submits
that the Indian Forest Act came into force from

¶93

24.10.1980 and the said Act has got retrospective

¶94

operation. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Nature Lovers Movement v.

¶95

State of Kerala reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court (Supp) 1573 . According to the learned counsel, the officer of

¶96

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶97

- 10 -

¶98

the Forest Department has filed an affidavit before this

¶99

Court clearly asserting that the land in question is
declared as a proposed reserved forest and no subsequent
notification has been issued for deforestation of the
said land. According to the learned counsel, in the year
2006, it was stated that the meeting has been held to

¶100

award alternative land for the Forest Department. No
steps are taken even pursuant thereto. The forest land
is to be protected to maintain the ecology and
environment.

¶101

Pleader submits that the land was transferred to the

¶102

Revenue Department under resolution of the year 1969.
The said land was in occupation of private individuals
and after following the procedure, the Sanad was also

¶103

issued to those in possession and in whose favour
allotments were made. The learned AGP further submits

¶104

that the meeting was held with the authorities of the
Forest Department, Revenue Department and it is proposed
to handover alternative site to the Forest Department.

¶105

- 11 -

¶106

intervenors in the PIL and the writ petition.

¶107

9]It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
intervenors and the respondents that under the resolution
dated 22.3.1969, the land was released in favour of
respective Ek Sala lease-holders. Thereafter, under
order dated 16.4.1980 of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Jalna, exercising powers u/s 51 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code and referring to the Government resolutions
dated 16.2.1973, 27.12.1978 and 22.3.1969, granted the
land of about 33 H 20 R to the persons, who were shown as
encroachers therein and regularized the possession.
According to them, thereafter even allotment letters are
issued and certificates are granted.

¶108

10]Mr.P.R.Patil, learned counsel relies on the

¶109

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in

¶110

Writ Petition No.503/1984 dated February 13, 1987, to

¶111

submit that the Division Bench had held that in 1969
itself, the Government had deforested the land when the
Government resolution dated 22.3.1969 was published and
the Court proceeded on the basis that the lands were in

¶112

fact deforested in the year 1969 itself. The learned

¶113

- 12 -

¶114

counsel further submits that the Jalna Municipal Council
published a development plan and this writ land is shown
in the residential zone. The said development plan is
sanctioned on 4.4.1989. Thereafter, construction

¶115

permissions are granted and the houses are erected. More
than 600 persons have erected the houses and residing
therein. Mr.P.R.Patil, the learned counsel also relies on

¶116

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Housing Development Co.Ltd. & another v. Goa Foundation & other reported in (2003) 11 SCC 714 and the judgment of

¶117

the Apex Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 3 SCC 430 , to submit that unless further steps are taken of issuing notification of land being a reserved forest, the land cannot be said to be a forest land.

¶118

11]Considering the documents placed on record and
the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the
respective parties, it is manifest that the land

¶119

admeasuring 34 H 90 R in Survey No.276 was declared as a
proposed forest land under the notification dated 16
Farwardi 1354 Fasli i.e. equivalent to the year 1944. At
the relevant time, the provisions of the Hyderabad Forest

¶120

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶121

- 13 -

¶122

Act, 1326 Fasli were applicable to the region
(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1326 Fasli).

¶123

12]The said notification appears to have been
published resorting to Section 7 of the Act, 1326 Fasli.
The procedure is laid down for further notifications.

¶124

Section 10 of the said Act states that when a
notification has been issued u/s 7, the Forest Settlement
Officer shall publish in Urdu and in the local vernacular
in the Jarida (official gazette) and at the headquarters
of the Taluka in which any portion of the land included

¶125

in the notification, is situatedand in every village and
town situated within or adjoining the land. The details
to be given in the proclamation are also specified.
After the issuance of the proclamation, enquiry is
required to be conducted by the Forest Settlement
Officer and the procedure is laid down for the enquiry,
thereafter final notification is required to be issued

¶126

u/s 18 of the Act, 1326 Fasli to be published in Jarida
(official gazette) specifying the limits of the forest
land, which is intended to be reserved and declaring the
same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such
notification.

¶127

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶128

- 14 -

¶129

13]From the record made available to us, it

¶130

transpires that except issuance of notification u/s 7,
declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land to
be reserved forest, no further steps at any point of time
have been resorted to. No proclamation is published u/s

¶131

10 nor any final notification u/s 18 is published. The
only notification on record is u/s 7 declaring that it is
proposed to constitute the land notified therein as a
reserved forest.

¶132

14]It is also not disputed that the said land was
occupied by various persons. In the year 1969, more
particularly 22.3.1969, the Government of Maharashtra

¶133

issued a resolution thereby resolving to release
permanently for cultivation of forest lands to the Ek-
Sala lease-holders. Some of the relevant clauses of the
said resolution are produced hereunder:-

¶134

"i] All forest lands given on eksali basis should
now be released permanently for cultivation to
the respective eksali lease holders;

¶135

ii] Such of these lands as are on the border of
forest should be deforested and transferred to
revenue Department for release to respective eksali
lease-holders;

¶136

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶137

- 15 -

¶138

iii] Such of these lands as are in the midst of the
forest should also be deforested and released to the
respective lease holders. However the control over
the lands should remain with the Forests department.
For this purpose the forest officers should be
empowered to exercise the power of revenue officers
on the lines of the orders issued in respect of
forest villages and settlements vide Government
Revolution no.FLD-426/1/Y, dated 22nd May 1967."

¶139

The said Government resolution was subject matter of
consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.503/1984 decided on February 13, 1987.
It was observed by the Court as under:-

¶140

"We also find that Government of India has not
taken any steps in the matter for last over
seven years when the Government resolution was
published by the State Government in the year
1969 for assisting the landless labourers."

¶141

15]Consistently, the Government has issued

¶142

resolutions regularizing the encroachments. On

¶143

14.8.1972, Government resolution is issued declaring that

¶144

the encroached forest lands to be transferred to the
Revenue Department. Thereafter, again the Government
resolution is issued on 27.12.1978 thereby regularizing

¶145

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶146

- 16 -

¶147

subsequent encroachments on the forest lands subject to
certain conditions. Thereafter, on 27.12.1979, the
Government further issued resolution for regularization
of forest land in favour of the encroachers as on
31.3.1978.

¶148

16]On 16.4.1980, the Sub-Divisional Officer has

¶149

allotted the writ land to the persons prior to coming
into force the Indian Forest Act, 1980. The Indian
Forest Conservation Act, 1980, came into operation on
25.10.1980 and prior to that, the said land was already
allotted as the persons to whom it is allotted were found

¶150

in possession of the said property. Thereafter, further
events have taken place such as issuing allotment orders
in favour of the persons in occupation of the said lands.

¶151

On 31.7.1980, Sanad was issued in favour of the

¶152

allottees. Thereafter, permission to sell was granted
and the said orders were also subject matter of

¶153

challenge. On 20.8.1981 purchase orders were issued.

¶154

The permission to sell that was given was subject matter
of challenge before the higher authorities and before the
State Government. The said permission was upheld upto
the State and the same became final.

¶155

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶156

- 17 -

¶157

17]Writ lands thereafter were included in the

¶158

development plan. The development plan for the Jalna
city was sanctioned on 4.4.1989. In the said development
plan, these lands are shown for residential purpose. It
is not disputed that on these lands, the construction
permissions are granted and the buildings are erected
long back. No trace of forest exists on these lands. In
fact, since beginning, these lands were never used as
forest lands. The writ land was cultivated even prior to
1969 as would be clear from the orders. Now the property
has been shown as reserved for residential purpose,
necessary construction permissions are given and the
buildings are constructed for more than 30 years. The
persons are in occupation of the same and in absence of

¶159

any further notifications being issued under the Act of

¶160

1326 Fasli and/or the Indian Forest Conservation Act and
in the wake of the fact that the said land was deforested

¶161

and handed over to Revenue Department, it would not be

¶162

possible to hold as on date that the forest land exists.
More over, even the State Government has acted over its

¶163

decision of handing over the said land to the Revenue
Department. It would be clear that from Gut No.276/1,

¶164

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶165

- 18 -

¶166

land admeasuring 58 H 66 R is given to the Police

¶167

Training Institute and now the same is being used for the
activities of Police Training Institute.

¶168

18]Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the
matter, the reliefs claimed about cancellation of
allotment cannot be considered.

¶169

19]Though we have not granted any relief in the
petition for the reasons discussed supra, however, we
express our displeasure for the manner in which the State

¶170

and its authorities have dealt with the land which was
proposed for forest. Instead of proceeding further with
issuance of further proclamation and notification, as
prescribed under the Act of 1326 Fasli, the State
released the land and handed it over to Revenue
Department. Efforts ought to have been made to preserve

¶171

the land and make it a forest. Now as far as writ land
is concerned, position has become irreversible.

¶172

20]Be that as it may. It is also important to

¶173

maintain a balance between sustainable development on one

¶174

hand and ecology and protection of environment on

¶175

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶176

- 19 -

¶177

another. The affidavit has been filed wherein it is
clearly stated that the State has agreed to allot
alternative land as a forest land. The forest land and
the land, which is proposed to be allotted as a forest
land, encroachment exists. Initially, the same was
decided in the year 2006 and again in 2016, the meeting
is held on that count. The State certainly owes
responsibility to give some alternative land to be
maintained as a forest land, we hope and trust that the
State would make positive endeavour to transfer some
alternative land to be maintained as a forest land and
this would be done on priority basis.

¶178

21] We appreciate the efforts of Mr.P.V. Barde, the learned amicus curiae in assisting the Court.

¶179

22]The Public Interest Litigation and the writ
petition accordingly stand disposed of. No further
costs.

¶180

23]Out of costs of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the
petitioner in this Court, 50% of the costs be transferred
to Legal Aid Sub-Committee at Aurangabad Bench and 50% of

¶181

WP 389/09 & PIL 71/11

¶182

- 20 -

¶183

the costs be transferred to Aurangabad High Court Bar
Association.

¶184

24]All civil applications also stand disposed of.

¶185

 (K.L. WADANE, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶186

ndk/ c25111633.doc

Illyas Mamu Mohd Yusuf Lakhara v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Illyas Mamu Mohd Yusuf Lakhara v. the Union of India and Ors.

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

Osmanabad Zilla Samaj Seva Mandal Osmanabad through Its Secretary Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahsu Asaram Chavan and Others Vs the Union of India Thr Secretary New Delhi and Others

Subhash Bhausaheb Dube and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ambadas Shadeo Yedwar and Anr.

Sunita Sitaram Surwase and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sinkukumar Krishnakumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others