Disposed

Dinesh Pandey v. Union Of India and Others

Uttarakhand HC7 May 2019WPPIL/22/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of a PIL alleging irregularities in the allotment of forest land to Van Gujjars under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, directing Directors of national parks to verify identities and delete ineligible entries.

What did the court decide?

Directed National Park Directors to inquire into identity discrepancies and report to the State Government to delete ineligible names and cancel benefits under the 2006 Act.

Dinesh Pandey Vs Union Of India… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (PIL) No. 22 of 2016

¶2

Dinesh Pandey ...Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ...Respondents

¶3

Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhandrespondent nos. 2 to 5.

¶5

Dated: 07^th May, 2019

¶6

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

¶7

Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)

¶8

This writ petition is filed, in public interest, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the allotment of plots to Van Gujjars in reserved forest areas, to restore the forest after cancellation of the allotment of land in the reserved forest area, to make plantations in the said land, and to direct the respondents not to take any further steps for conversion of the forest land for non-forest activities in the name of rehabilitation of Van Gujjars; and for a mandamus commanding the respondents to constitute a high level committee to inquire into the irregularities and illegalities in utilizing the forest land for non-forest activities, and in allotting plots/lands to the alleged Van Gujjars; and to take appropriate action against the responsible officers.

¶9

While the petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 be declared unconstitutional and contrary to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner does not wish to press for an adjudication of

¶10

¶11

this prayer; and the petitioner confines his claim only to the reliefs sought for in prayers 1 and 3.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner, in this writ petition, is that, while the number of Van Gujjars shown in the list prepared in the year 1988 was around 512, the number has slowly and progressively increased to nearly 3000, resulting in forest land being allotted to those who are not even Van Gujjars; and this, in turn, has resulted in several more trees being cut down, and forest growth being destroyed in the process.

¶13

Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw our attention to the list dated 14.03.1988 to submit that, though a few of the individuals identified as Van Gujjars therein were not even alive when the said list was prepared, their wives were shown therein as Van Gujjars. He would state that, as against the 266 names reflected in the said list, the number has now increased multifold only because forest officials had, in collusion with the individuals concerned, included them in the list of Van Gujjars only to enable them to be provided land within the forest. While several other discrepancies are also pointed out in the said list, and it is contended that similar lists, prepared by other officials later also contains several discrepancies, the exercise of verifying whether those, who are not Van Gujjars, were surreptitiously included in the list of Van Gujjars only to provide them land in terms of the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for short “2006 Act”), is a matter which the concerned officials are required to examine in the first instance.

¶14

As the two major forest areas in this State are the Corbett National Park and the Rajaji National Park, it is but appropriate that the Directors of these two National Parks be entrusted with the task of verifying whether those included in the list of Van Gujjars, to be

¶15

¶16

conferred the benefits under the 2006 Act, are in fact Van Gujjars or not.

¶17

Suffice it, in such circumstances, to permit the petitioner to make a representation to the Directors of Rajaji National Park and the Corbett National Park furnishing details of the persons whom the petitioner claims are not Van Gujjars, and have been surreptitiously included in the list of Van Gujjars only to confer on them the benefits under the 2006 Act to which they are otherwise not entitled to. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that such a representation would be made separately, to both the Directors of Rajaji National Park and the Corbett National Park, within two months from today.

¶18

Both the Directors of Rajaji National Park and the Corbett National Park (respondents 4 and 5) shall have a detailed inquiry caused in this regard, and submit their report(s) to the State Government within six months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s representation. Within two months of receipt of the report(s) from respondents 4 and 5, the second respondent shall take action to delete the names of those individuals, who ought not to have been included in the list of Van Gujjars in the first place, and take necessary action, in accordance with law, to cancel the benefits, if any, extended to them under the 2006 Act and the relevant Rules/Government Orders.

¶19

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶20

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) 07.05.2019 07.05.2019 Rahul

Dinesh Pandey v. Union Of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Pandey v. Union Of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner Of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Shri Satyabrata Swain

Dr. Neeru Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Commissioner Of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs Surya Polypack Private Ltd.

Bisarat Ali Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pant Kardiya Karnatak Sanskratik Manch Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vinod Kumar Dhiman Vs Principal Secretary Medical Health and Family Welfare