S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) AS in all the aforesaid cases, common questions of law are Involved, based on common facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE petitioners claim to be the members of a Co -operative Society, known as Navchetan Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Kamaldih, Chas, District -Bokaro. They have challenged the entire criminal proceeding(s), including the order(s), taking cognizance of the offence under Sec.33 of the Indian Forest Act. Some of the petitioners have moved before the District Judge, Bokaro, against the order(s) taking cognizance, by preferring Criminal Revision Applications), which having been dismissed, they have also challenged the revisional order(s) whereas in some of the cases orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, dismissing the discharge petition(s), filed by some of the petitioners, are under challenge. In Cr. MP No. 771 of 2003, the entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 17 of 1999 is under challenge; in Cr. MP No. 772 of 2003 the petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceedings of BF Case No. 32 of 1999; in Cr. MP No. 1558 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 33 of 1999 is under challenge; in Cr. MP No. 1559 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 18 of 2000 is under challenge; in Cr. MP No. 1560 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 34 of 1999 is under Challenge and in Cr. MP No. 1561 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 29 of 2000 is under challenge. Brief fact in all the cases, as pleaded by the petitioners, is that the Government of Bihar, in exercise of power conferred under Sec.29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act XIV of 1927), issued a Notification on 9th July, 1958, declaring the lands, mentioned in the Schedule of Notification, as forest lands and waste lands, to be called as "protected forest", subject to enquiry with regard to the nature and extent of rights of Government and private parties. The Forest Settlement Officer was appointed on 9th July, 1958 vide Notification No. C/F -701458 -1429 -R t6 enquire into and decide the right, title and interest of parties. One LA Case No. 4 -3/60 -61 was registered before the Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad in respect of Plot Nos. 370, 337, 335, 20 and 24; having total area of 60.26 Acres, which was dropped on 8th August, 1963. The Forest Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, having heard and after making enquiry, by order dated 28th November, 1964 ordered to release lands having Plot Nos. 370, Khata No. 48 of Mauza -Kamal -dih, Chas, District -Bokaro in Settlement Case No. 55 of 1963 -64. He held that unless the State of Bihar acquires any portion of the land by legal procedure, the said land cannot form part of "protected forest".
(3.) IN the said case, petitioner Haru Mahto and some of his co -sharers were present before the Forest Settlement Officer. The Range Officer, Chas was also present. Haru Mahto produced the khatiyan, receipts and other papers, which were noticed vide order dated 30th August, 1964. After hearing the parties, the Forest Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, held "I am convinced that Haru Mahto and his co -sharers have raiyati rights over all the plots, as noted in the order sheet dated 30th August, 1964" . It was ordered that Plot Nos. 20, 24, 337 and 370, which had been included in the demarcated area of the forest, be released and the map and pillars be corrected accordingly. Further case of the petitioners is that one Kameshwar Prasad purchased portion of same plots from the descendants of the recorded raiyats vide registered sale deed dated 3rd September, 1973 and came in actual possession of the land. The State of Bihar through its Forest Department raised some objections to the possession of said Kameshwar Prasad. In such a situation, Kameshwar Prasad preferred a writ petition being CWJ No. 418 of 1978 -R before Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court. On 8th September, 1978, a Bench of the High Court having recorded the Vijay Bala Sinha Versus State Of Jharkhand assurance, given by the counsel for the State, that shall he direct his client to give effect to the release order, disposed of the writ petition.;