c'v ISLE BB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUERE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l W.P.NO. '^^6^/2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus 1. ^ 8.' 1 °o'/o/ / i/f/ 71^7 y/y w rff TS/ '• f P^! 0)\ ^ s>v Lathu Ram Yadav, S/o- Jagbandhu, aged about 40 years, R/o- Village- Memra, Tehsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, 'New Delhi. The state of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) The Divisional Forest Officer, •District- Mahasamurid (C.G.) The Forest Range Officer, Forest Range, Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.) The Forest Settlement Officer, Forest Range, Pithoura, District Mahasamund (C.G.) The Tehsildar, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund •The Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) r!i! ifcj.——— WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUING DIRECTIQN. Mmwsaw y<yq"(4K<lrt<y, UiTll<-l<|<»,f6|rtf<-fy( ..W...^.:.^M]^. ^200 sii^sTwR'ii* ?T2ff3nt?riOTw 3IT^?T VRR> (ijcjijd^) ?;RiT8R'nfg?r an^?i 23.9J005 Shri F.5. Khare, counsel Shri Bhisma Kingar, Stcn Shri Sandeep bubey, 60 Heard. The petitioner has pre' 226/227 of the Constitution The case of the petitioi Village "(A e-^^v-^ o^ , Foi Mahdsamund. As the petition< he started cultivating the fo Forest Compartment No.658 33 years. In the year 1( (Conservation) Act, 1980 Bhumiswami ri9ht to the var covering an area of 154 a) Compartment No.658. The p( adjacent villages were under ^---tttso be 9ranted to -them by taken the petitioner along wi- of the Fon-st & Revenue De^i .case 6f~the petituner and <hl«[ri<i1^tiltidl' ^' fe><a -(Rl^K ^3|R)13II^ST N for the petitioner. ding Counsel for respondent No.l. ^t. Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. ferred this writ petition under Article >|f India. jer is that he is a permanent resident of fest Range Pithora, Tehsil & District is a kmdless agriculturist, therefore, •est land of about 6 acres situated at >tal area 800 acres since 1972 i.e. about '91 under the provisions of Forest t^ie then State of M.P. had granted ous agriculturists of Village Bhetihidih :res out of that 800 acres land of ititioner herein and villagers of other impression that Bhumiswami right would ie Sovemment, but when no action was other villagers contacted the officers irtment and they had assured thct the o^her villagers would be considered. But XI-HC-78 \dT,T|-^|^lrt<<,u>Tn'H<l<S,Rril'('iy<{ • 6^ »i1*101 a»Trq» 3T[^?I'raq? (4dfj's|.g) ^200 SiI^STqilR'li* aaiT.3ii^sr**ii* s^nsR^ifSaaii^ST 2_ even then no action has been ta with other villagers made a respondent No-7-Forest Settlem* Thereafter, the petitioner alo approached the respondent representation to the Chief Mirii; 5.8.2cx)4, the Joint Secretary Cotfector, M<Aasamund for surv) the Revenue Department. On li Records directed the Additional representation immedkitely afte as per rule. The Additional 30.12.2004, thereafter; a map o|| and 6ram Panchayat Kishanpur objectionon 27.5.2005 (Annexu| has been heard from the side of Now the ForeSt (Conserv( referred to as "Rules of 2003")] Rules of 2003 a Forest Advisfsry Regional Empowered Committee (Sovernment ond these Commit|l opinion in all t}-i& matters r^ <P|<<[»41-1iiinTit'ls'^l '(Rl+^l't ^aif^Tan^?! 4<en, therefore, the petitioner along representation (Annexur^ P-2) to ^nt Officer, Pithoro in the year 1994. ^g with other vilkigers repeatedly authorities ond again made a ^ter of the State (Annexure P-3). On Ito the Chief Minister directed the ^y of Compartment No.658 through 1.10.2004 the beput/ Collector. Land Tehsildar, Pittiouro for sending the survey of the Compartment No.658 fehsildar conducted the survey on Compartment No.658 was prepared Van (Sram Samiti have also given no ^e P-8 <& P-9), but even then nothing respondents au-thorities. ition) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter shall idS been framed and under Rule 3 of Committee and under Rule 4 a has been constituted by the Central 1'ees have power to decide or give ;latin9 to ttie forest. The State "^E:''M&IIIUNWSNffiHudiS:Bsrtag^ ^XI-HC-TS \dOT|^-q^rt<t,^u'at«<id,%»iI<-iy<^ &e *tjl*1«l^TT^ j^9Tq^R(i^g^) ^200 :,i;jjj!l i;!il :ss5^y'y~" 'l 'i (rarsii^sTAii* (-S- •X'' H;. [jnder sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of ^eritrql Govemment. Ultimatety, ••t-~ ^spondents be directed to granl -t fcer rule, over 6 acres of tand. Counsel for thepetitiorier ^pplied foruser'i of'rfie tand in qu< Forrn A & B as per Rule6 of "th 'l-!i:lafi, ?^fT<R^I^I 3(I^?I -^ ^oVeminen¥ais required to send t^ie proposal to the concemed authority •(he Rules of 2003 for approval of the a prayer Tias been made that the Bhumiswami right to -Hie petitioner, as ^ubmits •that the petitioner has already ^stion before +he concerned authority ih Rules of 2003,jbut -rfie Fbrest State Auttiorities are inot enquiring iB(to and not takirig appropriate affition. Therefdre, theybe directed to t^ Standing Counsel for responder^ Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to The prayer made by couns^ fair and reaso.ndble, therefore, ifi proposal of petiliioner examined ir| in case proposal s found to be acc^ then respondentjNo.2 should senc^ accordonce witft ithe Rules of 2005 With the direction aforesat) Consequerjtly, M.(W.)P.No^ stand d\aposed\0f- '."' C^rt;l?fi©dlcc.'^v;'yT3 oer' .n^l^.^.;; <pi<lfn'!lli*i]i«Y^"fai^|<R|'hi|'( ^sif^jsn^if ike appropriorte action, to which l<Bdnie| Nos.1 Shri Kingar &llearneclj fibvt^ |9 Shri Dubey, haveno.objection. 1 for'the petitioner appears to fcie just,, espondent No.2 is directed to ;get rffcie: accordanee witti tfie Rules of '2003 'wiS iptable and covered under the said rules, his report to the Centrqt SoVernment in wittiin a perjod of 06 months. • | 1,-the'pefitioh'stands disppseciof;:; . , Ha3/05 <& I.A. No.<S^lSC) <f©5 ;a|so t:.C. BKacloO :l'i^"^ w •ij •J I.