BALIRAM Vs. STATE OF U P AND 3 OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-258
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 19,2015

BALIRAM Appellant
VERSUS
State Of U P And 3 Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe, is in cultivatory possession of gata no. 2914 (Ga) admeasuring two hectares situated in village Kota, Robertsganj, since 1385 fasli (1978). In 1977-78 the State Government notified District Mirzapur (now District Sonebhadra) reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act.
(2.) It is contended that the forest officials thereafter started interfering in the possession of the tenure holders, criminal cases were registered at the behest of Vanvasi Sewa Ashram. It is alleged that in 2012 the forest officers restrained the applicant from carrying agricultural activity over the land in dispute against which the applicant filed objections on 25 August 2012 before the third respondent Forest Settlement Officer, District Sonbhadra, which was registered as Case No. 1401 (Bali Ram vs. Forest Department) under Section 9/11 of the Indian Forest Act. The forest department in their objections stated that the land in dispute is recorded "Jungal" prior to the abolition of zamindari, the time for raising objections as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court being until 31 July 1987 has since expired, further, notification upon being published under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, the dispute attained finality. The third respondent upon considering the evidence and material available on record rejected the objection filed by the applicant on 6 May 2013 for the reason that the objection is barred by laches, further, cannot be considered after notification being issued under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. Aggrieved, applicant filed an Appeal being Appeal No. 96 of 2014 (Baliram vs. Forest Department and another) which was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anpara, at Obra on 28 July 2015 for the reason that the appellate authority would have no jurisdiction. Review petition filed thereafter was also rejected on the ground that after publication of notification under Section 20, the appellate forum would have no jurisdiction.
(3.) The petitioner is assailing the orders referred to herein above.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.