- (1.) BY invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Forest Case No.8 of 2011 including the orders, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989) and also under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act has been taken against the petitioner, on the allegation that the petitioner- the Director of M/s Electro Steel Integrated Limited (now M/s Electro Steel Steels Limited), District -Bokaro, by encroaching over the land, appertaining to Plot Nos.1120 & 1159 of Village Bhagabandh, Distt :-Bokaro, falling within the forest area started construction work and thereby he indulged himself in non-forest activities without taking permission of the Central Government under the provision of Section 2 of the Conservation of Forest Act. Earlier also on the same allegation of constructing boundary wall over the land bearing plots No.1120, 1105, 1159, 1389 and 1321, appertaining to Khata No.58, Mauza No.83, situated at Village Bhagabandh, District of Bokaro, several cases were lodged against number of employees including the Director of M/s Electro Steel Integrated Limited. Upon which cognizance of the offence under Section 33 of the Act had been taken.
(2.) THOSE orders were challenged before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009 and analogous cases. This Court, having taken notice of the facts that process of the notification as claimed to have been issued under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act had never been completed and that the parties have been exercising their respective rights, titles and possession over the land on the basis of registered sale-deeds executed by the raiyats in whose favour decree of declaration of right and title had been passed by the court of the competent jurisdiction, quashed the proceedings of all the cases including orders taking cognizance vide orders dated 31.7.2010. That order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos.9884 to 9887, which got dismissed. However, while dismissing, it was observed that the impugned order as well as the order of this Court shall not preclude the State from taking such appropriate action in the matter as may be available to it in law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that mainly on those two grounds, the entire criminal proceeding is being sought to be quashed, as the petitioner has derived right, title and interest over the land, in question by virtue of the sale-deeds executed by the raiyats in whose favour decree with respect to right, title and interest was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction and thereby, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence either under the Indian Forest Act or Conservation of Forest Act and as such the entire criminal proceedings is fit to be quashed. A counter-affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been stated that by virtue of a notification issued in the year 1958 under Section 29(3) of the Act, land, in question, has been declared as protected forest and as such, any non-forest act by any one over the said land would fasten him with criminal liability under the Forest Act. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on perusal of the record including the order passed in Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009, as well as analogous cases, it does appear that the court while dealing with the matter related with those cases did record that in a Title Suit preferred by the raiyats against the Department of Forest, it was held that the process of the notification as contemplated under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act never got completed and thereby purported notification will never assume the characteristics of the notification, as contemplated under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act and thereby it will not extinguish the rights of the raiyats and as such, any act / acts done by raiyats or successors in interest, in exercise of his right over the land which was never found to be the land of protected forest would never entail the person with criminal liability.
(3.) SIMILAR was the dispute in case of Brajesh Kumar Ray and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. [2005 (3) JCR 464 (Jhr.)], where the petitioners were sought to be prosecuted by the Department of Forest when they in exercise of their rights have used the land claimed by the Department to be the forest land. While allowing the case, it was observed by this Court which reads as follows :- "All these merely shows that the parties are at litigating terms and both of them are claiming their respective right, title and possession. The petitioners are claiming right, title on the basis of registered sale deed obtained from the raiyats, whereas, the State is claiming that it as a "protected forest" and thereby land of the State. In the aforesaid circumstances, there being genuine disputes of right and title, I hold that the criminal proceedings are not warranted in law. In fact the State, including its Forest Department, should pursue the remedy in the suit /appeal, either pending before civil court, having competent jurisdiction, or before this Court". This Court by putting reliance on the said case allowed the cases bearing Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009, and analogous cases as facts were almost identical in all those cases.;