cP s^ai? ^mw ./^ c-; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUERE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. N0. C /2005 PETITIONER ^ ^••"^^5-""" ^y ^'*••••' RESPONDENTS r 10 '?>.. G. ^ ^^,'u Versus 1. 6. 8. 9. Tulsi Ram, S/o- Tejuram Kumhar, aged about 28 years, R/o- Village- Kishanpur Tehsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) • Uhjon 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- Mahasamund (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.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSnTUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUING DIRECTION. Ki *ii*i«i^'m^ \d-cq.^iqirt<j^ Ui-(-l|'(-|<|c»,Rlrit'i-fy'; .Ltif.....4.?.?.f./.?:T- W^200 antsrw^TW OTr31I^?T{h*< 3H^?T (Rq? (tyf^^) STaiwafeT SII^ST 23.9.2005 5hri F.S. Khare. counsel 5hri Bhisma Kingar, Stcu 5hri Sandeep Dubey, 6q Heard. The petitioner hcis pre' 226/227 of the Constitution o ferred this writ petition under Article f India. The case of the petitior^ Village ^^kei-^f'^v- , Foi Ma.hasamund. As the petition^ he start-ed cultivating the fo) 33 years. In the year l^ Bhumiswami right to the var covering an area of 154 a Compartment No.658. The p <ni«(n«li*ii*i«V^'fe*^l'(Ril'h;l'( ^aif^Tsii^n for the petitioner. o ding Counsel for respondent No.l. ^t. Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. er is that he is a permanent rasident of •est Range Pithoro, Tehsil & District is a kuidless agriculturist, therefore, •est fand of about 6 acres situated at Forest Compartment No.658 t^tai area 800 acres since 1972 i.e. about 91 under the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 t(ie then State of M.P. had granted ous agriculturists of Village Bhetihidih ;res out of that 800 acres land of rtitioner herein ond vilbgers of other ^;"c""t "•lliT'f' i»e-s under' impression that Bhumiswami right would also be gronted to them by •(he (Sovemment, but when no action was taken the petitioner along wi-^h other viilagers contacted the officers of the Forest & Revenue C>e|J artment and t'ney. had assured ttiat the case of- the petitioner ond o^her viltagers would be considered. But ._—^^3- Mt^. XI-HC-78 \svcf '-yi^irt^, u-at'(-i<id, R«f<-iy< ^WcM ^m^ 3H^9T q^P (lyl^sl^) ^200 3II^?iq5lK-< ?RIT3II^8Tsb*) ?^aT(Rwfei3n^?T _ •^_ evan then no action has been tc with other villa9ers made a respondent No.7-Forest Settlemi Thereafter, the petitioner ulo^ig approached the respondeht representation To the Chief Mini 5.8.2004, the Joint Secretar/ Collector, Mahasamund for surv| the Revenue Department. On 1; Records directed the Additional representation immediately afte as per rule. The Additional 30.12.2004, thereafter, a mop o| and 6rom Poinchayat Kishanpur objection on 27.5.2005 (Annexu^ has been heard from tkie side of Now ttie Forest (Conservj referred to as "Rules of 2003")| Rutes of 2003 a Forest Advi^" ftegionai Empowered Committee. Sovernment and these Commitl opinion in all the matters r^ <p|<<(o<I1l *l!*)dT4'fei$t'(Ril'l-dl'; ^Slf^H 311^91 i|<en, therefore, the petitioner alon9 representation (Annexure P-2) to ^nt Officer/Pithora in the year 1994. with other vilkigers repeatedly authorities and again made a ^ter of the State (Annexure P-3). On It-o the Chief Minister directed the ^y of Compartment No.658 through ^10.2004 the Deput/ Collector, Land Tehsildar, Pithoura for sending the survey of the Compartment No.658 ehsilckir conducted the survey on Compartment No.658 was prepared Van 6ram Samiti have also given no <e P-8 & P-9), but even then nothing respondents authorities. ition) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter shall idS been framed and under Rule 3 of iry Committee and under Rufe 4 a las been constrizited by 1+ie Centrcl tees have power to decide or give lating to 'tlie forest. The State ~ "*k^T^I XI-HC-78 vd-oq ^|<41rt^, U>T||'(-1<1(»,RriiK-l^ *ii<i«ia?TT^ 3TI^STtRq)(4c|fjc|^) ^200 SlT^STWR-li* traTan^sTgTqra; i ^Ssg SWTSR^a3n^?T T 3 povernment is required to send [jnder sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of ^entral ©overnment. Ultimatety, ^espondents be directed to grant t>er rule, over 6 acres of land. Counsel for the petitioner ^ipplied for user of the land in quf :'orm A <5i B as per Rule 6 of thi Authorities are not enquiring ir^ Therefore, they be directed to t^ Standing Counsel for responden( Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to The prayer made by couns^ fair and reasonable, therefore, proposal of petitioner examined \r\ in case proposal is found to be acc^ then respondent No.2 should senc^ accordance with the Rules of 2003 With the direction aforesail Consequently, M.(W.)P.No. stand disposed of. Certified copy a's -nr rules. Tde <i>i«[CT41ll'*inV^fal<rl •<R)+iil'( ^3ff^*I3D^<T proposal to the concerned authority •^he Rules of 2003 for approval of the a prayer hds been made that the Bhumiswami ri9ht to the petitioner, as tubmits that the petitioner has already jstion before the concemed aut+iority in Rules of 2003, but the Forest State ir^to and not taking appropriate action. ike appropriate action, to which learned Nos.l 5hri Kingar &, leamed (5ovt. 9 5hri Dubey,have no objection. for the petitioner appears to be just, ^spondent No.2 is directed to get the accordance with ttie Kules of 2003 and ;ptable and covered under the said rules, his report to the Central Sovernment in within a'period of 06 months. I, the petition stonds disposed of. l3.-7£t>/05 & I.A. No. ?^^4 /05 also Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge EB