Dismissed

Dr R K Singh v. Union of India

NGT9 May 2025IA No. 28/2025 in Original Application No. 200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to withdraw the original application regarding alleged encroachment on forest land. The court dismissed the application as withdrawn, relying on a High Court judgment that classified the land as "Purani Parti" (old fallow land) rather than "forest land".

What did the court decide?

Order for withdrawal of Original Application No.200/2024/EZ; all interim applications disposed of accordingly.

Dr R K Singh vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Court No.1

¶2

Item No.10

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.200/2024/EZ (I.A. No.28/2025/EZ)

¶6

In the matter of: Dr. R.K. Singh Son of Late Shri Nitya Nand Singh, Aged about 59 Years, Resident of G-600, GAMA 2, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh

¶7

.... Applicant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Union of India Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change,

¶10

Government of India, Through its Secretary, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh, New Delhi - 110003

¶11

2. State of Jharkhand

¶12

Through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, 1^st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi – 834004, Jharkhand

¶13

3. Deputy Commissioner Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand - 827001

¶14

4. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head Of the Forest Force (HOFF) Forests, Environment and Climate Change Department, Van Bhawan, Doranda, Ranchi – 834002 Jharkhand

¶15

5. Divisional Forest Officer Bokaro Forest Division, Van Bhawan, Chas Block-B, J5FH+6PJ, DSP Colony, Shivpuri Colony, Bokaro Steel City, Chas, Jharkhand - 827013

¶16

6. Umaayush Multicom Private Ltd.

¶17

Indrapuri , Raja Bazar, New Capital, Patna

¶18

¶19

7. Lalan Singh Son of Late Chandra Deo Singh, Raja Bazar, R-6 & 7 impleaded vide Road No.1, order dated 20.02.2025 New Capital Patna, in I.A. No.31/2025/EZ Pin - 800014

¶20

.... Respondent(s)

¶21

Date of hearing: 09.05.2025

¶22

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶23

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Adv. (in Virtual Mode)

¶24

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dibyendra Narayan Ray, Sr. Adv. a/w

¶25

Mr. Sourav Haldar, Adv. for R-1 (in Virtual Mode), Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. for R-2, 3, 4 & 5 (in Virtual Mode), Mr. Kallol Basu, Adv. a/w Mr. Nilanjan Pal, Adv. for R-6 & 7,

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the Applicant.

¶28

The Applicant has filed the Original Application alleging that Plot nos.-426 and 450 of Village Tetulia, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro, a notified forest land, is being used for Non-Forest purposes without complying with the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

¶29

It is stated that the area comprising 95.65 acres in plot numbers 426, 450, 483, 554 and 479 in mouza Tetulia, Thana no. Chas 38, is a Protected Forest duly notified vide gazette notification dated 24.05.1958 issued by the Government of Bihar, Patna u/s 29 of Indian Forest Act, 1927.

¶30

The Applicant has referred to an article published in “Ranchi Express” newspaper dated 29.07.2024 wherein it has been reported that more than 95 acres of forest land has been encroached and is being subjected to non-forest use. Photographs have been filed by way of documentary evidence as also the newspaper report.

¶31

¶32

Counsel for the parties have exchanged their affidavits in the meantime.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 has placed before us the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in I.A. No.12847 of 2024 in/and Cont. Case (Civil) Case No.956 of 2024 Umaayhush Multicom Private Limited versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. dated 17.04.2025 wherein the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 was the Petitioner.

¶34

We find that in para 81 of the said judgment the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand has recorded a clear finding of fact that the land in question is classified not as “ Forest Land ” but as “ Purani Parti ” i.e. old fallow land/raiyati land only and thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court has held that there is no merit in this plea of the Respondent No.4 therein.

¶35

Further, in para 82 of the judgment, the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand has rejected the plea of the Respondent No.4 therein that the Petitioner cannot carry on any non-forest activity on the subject land because it is ‘forest land’ irrespective of ownership. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the land being “Purani Parti” land as per Continuous Khatian issued by the Revenue Officer Chas dated 09.03.2022, no restriction on it’s enjoyment can be put by the Respondents by treating it still as a ‘forest land’. Paragraphs 81 and 82 of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand dated 17.04.2025 read as under :-

¶36

“ 81) Respondent No.4 raised a plea that some of the subject land belongs to Bokaro Steel Plant. But counsel for the petitioner has filed an order dt.02.03.2022 issued by the Revenue Officer, Chas under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, deleting the area said to be belonging to the Bokaro Steel Plant after a detailed inquiry in which the said

¶37

¶38

Steel Plant has also admitted that the said land was not acquired for it’s use. The Revenue Officer, Chas in view of judgments in W.P.(C) No.593 of 2017 and LPA No.786 of 2018 held that the record of rights is to be rectified, and even the land previously shown as owned by Bokaro Steel Plant authority has to be deleted, and the same shall be recorded in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter a Continuous Khatian was also issued to the petitioner on 09.03.2022 after carrying out the said corrections.

¶39

It indicates the land is classified not as ‘forest land’ but as ‘Purani Parti’ i.e old fallow land/raiyati land only. This is filed at page 116 of his consolidated reply to the show cause dt. 19.10.2024 and 25.10.2024 filed by the Respondent No.2.

¶40

So there is no merit in this plea of respondent No.4 either.

¶41

82) We reject the plea taken by the respondent No.4 that petitioner cannot carry on any non-forest activity on the subject land because it is ‘forest land’ irrespective of ownership. The land being ‘Purani Parti’ land as per the Continuous Khatian issued by the Revenue Officer, Chas on 9.3.2022, no restriction on it’s enjoyment can be put by the respondents by treating it still as a ‘forest land’.”

¶42

Mr. Saurabh Sharma, learned Counsel for the Applicant states that in view of the finding of the fact recorded by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, he does not want

¶43

to press the Original Application and he may be allowed to withdraw the same.

¶44

The Original Application No.200/2024/EZ is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶45

I.As, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶47

Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶48

May 09, 2025, Original Application No.200/2024/EZ (I.A. No.28/2025/EZ) SKB

¶49

Dr R K Singh v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr R K Singh v. Union of India

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

Sant Kumarnetam vs Union of India

Sant Kumarnetam vs Union of India

Sant Kumarnetam vs Union of India

Kali Charan Chand vs the Chief Secretary of Odisha

Azaan International through Its Proprietor vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Sohanveer vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Varsha Aggarwal vs Union of India

Nitin Dhiman vs

Kali Charan Chand vs the Chief Secretary of Odisha

Ravindra Kumar vs State of Bihar

Raghunath Maity vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled the Last Feral Horses in India Appearing in Mongabay Dated 05 11 2024 vs Chief Wildlife Warden Assam

Dr R K Singh vs Union of India

Ashok Khamri vs West Bengal Mineral Devlopment and Trading Corporation Limited