./ ^' A r- /^ lNJlHEJIlGH_CQURT,OF.CHHArri_SGARHjBILASPUR Writ Petition No. 3248 of 2004 Peti.tioner Baliraiu son ot Ktiorbahra Sataami, aged about 58 yssrs, cultivator resident of viUage Baud.ua, ialisil 'laktiatpur, Distt. Buaspur ir' n l \^-^'j Versus Kespondents 1. The Boaid ot Kevenue at Bilaspur fC.U.) 9- <S.tntf3 ri-f rL^^"T+ti<?loTnr^> Jr^1i?'^ii<y^ P<>n"<<for ^? l—.JSA-At/l^ \^-L ^^JLJ-^-1-l-^-^iw^'h^^^..^AJr^-^ A. J.-fi.^^-? ^A,^Jt.^ •'^J<^^-E.^*^ V»^-£-^ Buaspur (C.G.) WKlT PET1T10N UNDEK AKIICLE ^27 01'' THE CONSTITUTION OF !MDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satisil K. Agmfaota J.i Shri Raai Kuinsr Tiwari, Advocate for fhe petitioner. SIu-1 Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate tbr ttie respondeiits. 1. 2. OR D E R (Passed on this 23rd Day of September, 2008) 'i'he petitioner, by fhis petition seeks a writ of niaadamus, cominaactiag the respondents to take appropnate decision on ttie appMcation tor allottuig the land to the petitioner tbr agriculture ayfc:. Irutially, aa appiication was niade by the pe&tioner betbie ffae CoUector on 10.4.2003 tor allotment of the disputed laad. A report dated 6.5.2003 (AaiiexuTe P/3) was submitted by Tahsildar, Takhatpur, holdiag that tfae land iu dispute is recorded as 'Bade Jhad Ka JangaT (^ 31TS ^T uPTpl), though at present fhere is no forest on the land in dispute. The Additional CoUector atter haviag considered the report decUned to atlot the laud on 21.1.2004 (Anaexure P/2) on fhe ground that siace the laud is recorded as 'Bacte Jhad. Ka Jaiigal' the atlotiiient caanot be granted without penuission ol the Central Uovenunent ta- y-^4 ~~^ •^ SKSJ&- 1 -'"":^ @! •k 'S ff y A /f/ l^" 3. Beuig aggneved, the peutioner prefcn-ed an appeal betbre fhe Board of Revenue. 'l'fae Board ot Kevenue alter haviug considered all the facts of ttie niatter, vide order dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure P/l.) affirmed ttie order dated 21.1.2004, passed by the Additional CoUector, holduig tfaat siace the laad is recorded as 'Bade Jhad Ka Jaugal' in. revenue records, no allotnient can. be inade without tlie permissiou of ttie Centrat Govenunent. The petitioner has preterrea this petition wifhout praying tbr quashiag or settmg aslde ot the order passed by the Board ot Kevenue aad auttiority below, seefcmg a writ of inandaaius to fhe respondents to allot the laad. 4. Per contra, Sbri Alok Baksbi, leamed counsel appearuig tbr fhe respondents subnuts that there is a coiaplete bar on aUotinent of a tbrest land, iacludiag 'Bade Jhad Ka Jaagal' without pemussion of ttie Central Goveminent. The orders passed by the authonties beiow are just aad proper. 5. 1 have heard leanied coiuisel appeailag tbr the parties and perused. the docuinents appended tbereto. 6. TIiere is no irresnitari.tv or intirmity iii ttie order passed by Uie Board of Kevenue. Adiiiittedly, tfae laad is recorded as 'Bade Jhad Ka Jangal' ia the r'even.ue records. Once it is recorded as Bade Jtiad Ka Jangal', no ailotm.ent caa be laade by the State autiiorities without obtamuig permission of fhe Central Goverrunent it is evident troni tae various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in tfae matter of T.N.Godavarman ThiifuinuUiLpad Vs. Union of India and others1, whereia it was held ttiat '"1'he Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enactect with a (1997) 2 SCC 2u7 '^ X- "'.// 7. view to cJieck turther deforestation which ultunatelv resiUts in ecological imbalaace; aad therefore, ttie provisions inade thereiii for the conservation of forests and tbr uiatter connected therewith, m.ust apply to aU tbrests irrespective of the nature 01 ownership or classitication tfaereof The word 'forest" inust be zuiderstood according to its dictionaiy laeaniag. This description covers all statutorily recognized tbrests, whether designated as icserved, protected or otherwise tbr tfae purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservatton Act. The tenn "ibrest laud", occurrhig iti Section 2, wilt not only iaclude fbresf' as understood ia the dictioxiary sense, but also aay area recoixled as forest ia the Goverrunent record UTespectlve of ttie ownersltip. 1'his is how it faas to be understood tbr t&e purpose ot Section 2 of the Act. Tiie provisions enacted ia tiie Forest Conservation Act, 1980 fbr fhe conservation of Ibrests and Uie inatters coitaected therewifh inust apply cleady to all forests to understood irrespecti.ve of fhe ownership or ciassi&cation thereof. It was furfher held in T.N.Godavarnaan (supra) that "In view of ttie Tnraning of tfae word '"foresf iu tfae Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Govenunent is required for aay non-forest activity within the area of auy 'ibrest'. In accordance witti Section 2 oftfae Act, all on-going activity within aay forest in. aay State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Gtovenunent, inust cease tbrthxvitb." In view of the tbregoing, there is no inerit ia this petition. The petition is disiaissed, accordingly. ~-'------ --—-— ——_ satish K- Agnihotri Thalair