IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 739 of 2004 (M/B) Mahabir Singh Rangal s/o Sri Jeet Sing Rangal, Block Pramukh Jaunpuri Village Lalotana Tehri Garhwal (Uttaranchal) .......... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal through Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Dehradun. 2. Secretary Forest Department Dehradun. 3. Collector, Tehri Garhwal. 4. Divisional Forest Officer, Tehri Garhwal. ......... Respondents Mr. B.P.S.Mer, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P.Joshi, Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. B.P.S.Mer, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to evict the residents of Gram Sabha Bishtaunsi, Khashoshi, Aindii, Bhatwari, Bashargaon, Srikot (Kot), Bamangaon, Khaskoti, Ghiyakoti, Negyana, Ankhli, Jhangeri, Binau, Tadwangao, Bandasri and Biror, without taking any course of law. B. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. C. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.” 2 3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner and several other persons are in peaceful possession of the disputed land for the last several years and the respondents now are trying to evict them. 4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have categorically stated that steps are being to evict the petitioner and other similarly situated persons from the land declared as reserved forest and they are not being disturbed from the land falling within Gram Sabha. Para 7 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “That the contents of paras 6 and 7 are not admitted and are denied. It is stated that Forest Depart is not acting upon the land which was alleged to be given by the erstwhile maharaja of Tehri to the persons mentioned in Annexure 1 as tenants. Only the attempts to encroach upon the Reserve Forests by the persons mentioned in Annexure 1 are being thwarted. No tenancy has been given by the erstwhile Maharaja of Tehri to any villagers on such Reserve Forest areas. The petitioner has not submitted any documents in support of tenancy.” 5. The controversy now narrows down to the eviction of the petitioner and others from the land declared as reserved forest. The receipts filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition issued in the year 1948 and 1953 also indicate that the land in question was a forest land. 6. In view of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman, no one can be allowed to carry on non-forest activities in a reserved forest. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioner and others from the land falling within the reserved forest. 8. The petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. 9. The petitioners, however, shall be at liberty to submit representation through State Government to the Central Government for the redressal of the grievances projected in the petition if the same is permissible under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 and the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman. 3 10. With the above observation, writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Consequently, interim order dated 25.05.2005 stands vacated automatically. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 02.05.2006 02.05.2006 A