Allowed

Mohd. Shafi v. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2026WPMS/2990/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners claiming status as Traditional Forest Dwellers challenged a Divisional Forest Officer's order rejecting their representation. The court held such determination lies with committee-level verification under the Forest Rights Act Rules, set aside the order, and permitted fresh application before the Competent Authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned DFO order set aside; liberty to apply to Competent Authority within four weeks; interim protection against dispossession for seven months or until decision.

Mohd. Shafi Vs State of Uttarakhand through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

¶1

UKHC010014872017

¶2

2026:UHC:5245

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPMS/2990/2017
			Mohd. Shafi --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand Through Principal Secretary --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
			3. Petitioners claim to be Traditional Forest Dwellers. They made representation to Divisional Forest Officer, claiming right which are available to Traditional Forest Dweller under Section 3 of the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The said representation was rejected by Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Central, Forest Division Haldwani, District Nainital, vide order dated 21.04.2016. 4. Petitioners have challenged the said order mainly on the ground that Divisional Forest Officer could not have returned a finding that petitioners do not fall within the definition of “Traditional Forest Dwellers or other persons”, which are protected by the aforesaid Act.

¶4

UKHC010014872017

¶5

2026:UHC:5245

¶6

It is contended that the Rules framed by Central Government under the aforesaid Act and notified on 01.01.2008 provide detailed procedure for identification of Forest Dwellers. It is contended that as per the Scheme of the Rules, Gram Sabha shall initiate the process of verification of claim under the provisions of Act and thereafter the SubDivisional Level Committee and District Level Committee shall identify persons as Forest Dweller. Thus, it is contended that the finding returned by Divisional Forest Officer in the impugned order is beyond the scope of his powers, as are available under the aforesaid Act. 6. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that the order was passed by Divisional Forest Officer in compliance of order dated 02.11.2015 rendered in WPMS No. 2012 of 2015. 7. Although coordinate Bench had directed the Divisional Forest Officer to decide the representation submitted by petitioners in the light of Section 3 of the Scheduled Tribes & Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, however, the said order cannot be pressed into service for defending the impugned order, as in the impugned order, Divisional Forest Officer has returned a finding which will come in the way of the petitioners at the time of their identification for claiming benefit under the aforesaid Act. 8. Since Divisional Forest Officer has taken a decision on a field which is reserved for Sub-Divisional Committee and District Level Committee, therefore,

¶7

UKHC010014872017

¶8

2026:UHC:5245

¶9

the finding returned is beyond the scope of powers available to Divisional Forest Officer. On this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside and is hereby set-aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioners shall be at liberty to make application before the Competent Authority for identification as Traditional Forest Dweller, and the application if made within four weeks from today, shall be dealt with as per law, within six months thereafter. For a period of seven months or till decision is taken by the Competent Authority, whichever is earlier, petitioners shall not be dispossessed and they shall be permitted to carry on the activity, which they were undertaking since decades. However, if petitioners fail to make application within four weeks, they shall not be entitled to any protection of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 01.07.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.02 05:59:42 -07'00'

¶10

UKHC010014872017

¶11

2026:UHC:5245

Mohd. Shafi v. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shafi v. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary

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

Laxmi Devi Verma Vs Excise Commissioner State of Uttarakhand

Mahant Dev Giri Vs State of Uttarakhand through Chief Treasury Officer

Urmila Devi Vs Pushpa Agarwal

Smt. Rajesh Kumari @ Rajbala Vs State of Uttarakhand through Chief Secretary Govt. of Uttarakhand Dehradun

M/S Rahul Sugar Products Khasra Vs Bank of India

Ms Mrinal Enterprises Khet No 4 Vs Punjab and Sind Bank