! /' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P.f 227 ) N0. t^O ^-1 OF 2009 Petitioners ^ppACct)^ ^/ .^i <r^'..-'' v^n3""^ ^y -^^ ^ .^"j^'./ <%y ^ Versus Respondents 1. Ramchandra Singh S/o Dharampal 2. Ramlakhan Singh S/o Dharampal 3. Bharat Singh S/o Amarpal Singh 4. Krishn Kumar Singh S/o Amarpal Singh 5. Vinay Kumar Singh S/o Amarpal Singh, 6. Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Amarpal Singh .7. Dev Kumar Singh S/o Amarpal Singh All are R/o village Taperkela, Tahsil -Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja-(C.G.) Board of Revenue Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur-(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^. •y.^^ ^ u 1 :^^ m J^ •g-^ ^jqKrfq, "g'^OT^, t^Tray ^P-C^I^No- MO^) )^ .^^i-q^^-f^y^) SB: HON. SHRI JUSTI&N.jLAGARWAI 3-8-2009 Shri A. N. Pandey, Shri P.K. Bhadim, ^^ta^N ^r^ff ^ tt^ ^R?R ^- lAdvocate, for the petitioners. \Panel Lawyer, for fhe State. Heard on admissic^n. Instant petition is jiirected against the order dated 13-1- 2009 passed by the Bo^rd of Revenue in Revenue Case No. R.N./16/R-B-121/392/^007 whereby leamed Board of Revenue affirmed fhe fm(lings recorded by the Tehslldar. I have gone caref^iUy through the iiapugned order of Board ofRevenue and m^terial placed on recard. The Naib Tehsilda^-, Darima submitted a report to the CoUector Sarguja that t^ie land bearing original Khasm No. 960 area 327 acres is r^corded as tGasr Majrua Sarkar Jhadi Jangal' in Sai^uja settiepent record and as fChhote Jhad Ke Jccngcd1 m Record Of RJights, 1956 but by dividing it into various Khasra number4 the same has been recorded in the name of several persons ^n their Bhumiswami r^hts. Upon such compl^nt, an enquiry was conducted and thereafter proceedings jmder Section 115 of C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ^fere initiated before Tehsildar for correction of incorrect a4d megal entries. The Naib Tehsildar vlde order dated 25-7-20(^5 after gbtog notice to such persons ?fR-i^h- ^R ^Jfr^^ IT^SRt?3!^'—FS/95—11 /2098—1,00,000. .^ >'-'..\ ^ i'i ^ .y / 3"y "^^^^' ^^ ^i^T^ra, '^fl^Fi^, f^rray "^ 200 %^T-q^5- (•^3^^) ^i^i^Tk-ri^ ^Nr3?n^iT<i^t 1'RTOT^fe^!^? ^ fe^T TN^R -^ and after affording the^n full opportunity of hearmg passed the order whereby the| recorded in fhe namej said land has been direeted to be of C.G. State. 'niereafter, appeals preferred by fhe petitioijiers were rejected and ultimatety, the Board ofRevenue has ^lso rejected the revision prefeired by the petitioners. I have heard leam^sd counsel for fhe partfes. This Court in the <j;ase of Baliram -v- Board of Revenue and aiaother reported ijn 2009 (1) CJLJ 30, has observed in para 6 as under:- a6. There is no orderpassed by t^e record^d recor^s. Govefnment the land is the revenue Jhad Ka Jangcd", State Authorities the CentrcU, varwws dedswns the matter of T.N\ Union of 6idia wherein it was Act, 1980 was further deforestatSpn ecological imbalanSpe; made therem. for matter connectedl forests irrespecti^e dassifkxition the^ irregularity or injvmity m the Board ofRevenue. Adnvittedly, as 'Bade Jhad Ka Jangal' in On.ee it is recorded as <Bade ^io allotinent can be made by the ^uithout obtawung penrdssion of It is evident from the (3f the Hon'ble Supreme Covrt in, Godavarmein Tturumulkpad Vs. others (1997) 2 SCC 267, that "The Forest C^nservation e^fiacted vnth a view to check which ultimately residts m n!pe; and therefore, the proviswns oonservation offorests artdfor therewith, nwst apply to all of the nature of ownership or ^eof. The word "foresf must be dSftd Mld the ^n^^r -<NP? ?T$%rr^oT^-^i<^i<—FS/95—i i /20os—i,00,000. ^^^ ^T^^ifc^TO ^rm^iw^fe -g-^f ^qpTRTsr, •^fRFi^, •t^Firay "^ 200 ^^^ C'^^^) •?1<IW<i^3Tl^i ^Fita^^ ^FI^ ^? fe^ ^N'i^R ^ understood accor^ng to its dictioncay meaning. This desaiption dpvers all statutoniy reoognized forests whether d^signated as reserved^ prabected or otherwise for t^ occurring in Sec^ior \Q purpose of section 2(i) of the Forest Conseruatidyi Act. The term "forest lesnd1 ^ 2, wiM not on^ mdude "forest9 as understood in tl^e dictionciry sense, but cdso any are recorded cis ^rest m the Govemment record trrespective of the pwnership. This is how it has to be understood jfor [the purpose of Section 2 c/ the provisfpns enacted in the Forest Act, 11980 for the asnservextipn of Act. The Conservc^ion forests and the mc^ters connected therewith must apply dearly to irrespective of th thereof. In view of the facjt been recorded by the of this Court in Ballraala' petition has no merit. the petitioners failed jurisdictional error present case. It is well settled exercise ofits supervisoi^ jurisdictii Constitution of India, with fhe order passed all forests to ? ownership or understood dUxssyiealxon Coiirts ^hri comijaitted t fhat fhe conciirrent findings have below aad in view of the decision t's case (supra), m my opinion this hri A.N. Pandey, leamed counsel for to point out any fllegaMly or by the Board of Revenue in the jprinciple of law that this Court, in fy jurisdiction under Article 227 of the ^hould refrain itself from interfermg r| the Court below except in such ca^s byjthi nKT^^ ?Nn K^^T IW??^Tt^—FS/95—l 1/2008—1,00,090. ^^ ^asc\ ffe^. 'l [ "yss^ I 1'^./ ''%^sy \;3ii^T^i'M^ ^ii-^i^r^iw -y^ "^n^M^^ 'Q^ftwi^, M^R?y '^ 200 .^ri^r-q^7(-<^f3^r) where perversity, iUegali^y on the face of fhe record,| The petition is hereby dismissed or jurisdictional error is writ large jwhich is not in flie present case. Uattle to be dismissed and fhe same is i? 'ft^r ^- Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge iffRT^N ^IU ^^?^°T^t':Tr^TTq—FS/95—11 /2008—1 ,OG;OGO.