® c , ^,\00 ' -r^tiK ia'a iS.fc SCfVW IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUERE AT BILASPUR CC.G.l W.P. N0. / 2005 PETITIONER js. RESPONDENTS 7/^ 1 ^,^/ .c^v W.fo/ !7^? /^^ /^y '/s ^' ^ u-^^ Versus /1. ' 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Khema Ram, S/o- Shri Vedram Marar, ,aged about 40 years, R/o- Village- •Laxmipur ' 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- Mahasamund (C.G.) The Forest Range Officer, ForestRange, 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 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUING DIRECTION ^u.tfc.tSSBWtfli'af.-.-iiSK ^ *ll*tc»l^TT^> \d-cq "t||<j|rt<<, tPTll'(-l<ld, (3|c41'(-iy'< .^...^.S.?.!..l.1F.. SII^OTtpIK'i' ?CT3fiS<[a>fro 3(I^9TW^ (*jc<ijc|<^) ^200 ?wrw?^Tfi!T3n^?i 23.9,2005 Shri F.5. Khare,counsel 5hri Bhisma Kin9ar, Stcu Shri Sandeep Dubey, 6t l-1eard. The petitioner has prel 226/227 of the Constitution o The case of the petitiof Villa9e Li^.^"-^' f31^r^ - , Foi Mahasamund. As the petition< he started cultivating the fo ^or the petitioner. <? ding Counsel for respondent No.l. ^t. Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. ferred t+iis writ petition under Article If India. er is that he is a permanent resident of ^st Ronge Pithora, Tehsil & District is a landless agricuiturist, therefore, Forest Compartment No.658 t^ 33 . years. In the year l' (Conservation) Act, 1980 tfi Bhumiswami right to the var covering an area of 154 a Compartment No.658. The p adjacent villages were under also be granted to them by taken the petitioner along wi' of the Forest <& Revenue De^ tDltIcxIltlllrtl'iffetQ^fSRgR ^sif^qsntsT est kind of about 6 acres situated at 'tal area 800 acres since 1972 i.e. about 91 under the provisions of Forest e then State of M.P. had granted ous agriculturists of Village Bhetihidih :res out of that 800 acres land of ititioner herein and v\\\agers of other mpression that Bhumiswami right would le (Sovemment, but when no action was other villagers contacted the officers irtment and they had assured that the case o-f^ihe petitioner and o^+ier villagers would be considered. But BB SP/FSQQOS^aoj-iaa-———— XI-HC-78 \d-c.T|'^i<4irt<4, u-alt^i&^ Rlril«(^y>( *ii+irtia?»nq» 3H^9T CRq; (>jc|ijc|,g) ^200 3TI^?TTTR-li<|) ?rai3II^;T*4i<b s^arsR^ifeisn^sT 2.- even then no action hds been t< with other villagers made a respondent No.7-Forest Setttem Thereafter, the petitioner alo^ig with other villagers repeatedly qiproached the respondent representation to the Chief Mini; 5.8.2004, the Joint Secretary Collector, Mahasamund for surv) the Revenue Department. On 12^ Records directed the Additional representation immediately a-fte as per rule. The ^dditionai 30.12.2004, thereafter, a map o|| and (5ram Pdnchayat Kishanpur 4 objection on 27.5.2005 (Annexu has been heard from t+ie side of Now the porest (Conserv(i referred to as "Rules of 2003")| Regionat Empowered CoiT>mi't"Tee <ni<<tn«li*i!lriTir'fei<3 •<Rl'(i;l'( ^Slf^TSIT^ST (<en, therefore, the petitioner along representation (Annexure P-2) to ^nt Officer? Pithoro in the year 1994. 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 Deputy Collector, Land Tehsildar, Pithoura for sending the survey of the Compartment No.658 fehsildar . conducted •the survey on Compartment No.658 was prepared Von (Sram Samiti have also given no re P-8 & P-9), but even then nothing respondents authorities. ition) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter shall las been fromed and under Rule 3 of ftules of 2003 a Forest Advi4'ry Committee and under Rule 4 a jhas been consti'tuted by ihe Central Government and these Commit|'ees have power to decide or 9ive opinion in ali the rr.atters ^fcl"t!ng to the forest. The State XI-HC-78 ^"T ;;iTroRFT, yTil'(i<ifi, Rtc*l^l y-( *11*1ril®TT^ 3IT^?T ira^ ('jc|fj«l<g) ^200 an^?T?iTR--ll^i, (mran^n^m; A' '&ovemment is reayjred to send ..%./s- pnder sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of ^entral^Govemtnent. Ultimately, ^espondents be directed to grant t)cr rule, over 6 acres of kind. , Courisel f^r the {ietitioner ^plied for useir iof the 1and in qu< Form A <& Bas per Rule 6 of th |Authorities are not enquirin9 irj Tlierefore, theyi be directed to t^ Standing Counsel for re^>onder^ Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to The praye:r made by couns^ fdir and reasofKtble; therefore, proposal of petifioner examined ir^ in case proposal jis found to be ace( then respondent No.2 ^iould senc| accorclance with'the Rules of 2003 With the idirection aforesaii Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.| stand disposed of. G®rtified;copv:iKper rutes. Ttie irfro <iii«[ci<Ilifi*inV^ffe^l'<Rif'(^|'<- ^ ^srf^Tair^yt proposdl to the concemed au-Hiority •(he Rules of 2003 for apprbval of •the a prayer has been made that the Bhumiswami right to the petitioner, as ^ubmits Ihat the petitioner has already )stion before the concemed authori'ty in Rutes of 2003| but -the Forest State ond not tod<ing cppropriate action. ike dppropriate action, to which learned Nos.l Shri Kingar & teamed 6ovt. 9 Shri Dubey,have no objection. for the petitioner oppears to be just, fespohdent fslo.2 is directed to,get the accordance with the Rules of 2003 ond iptable and eovered under the saici ruleS, his report to the Central Sover'nmenf in withinaperiod of 06 months. I, the petitionstdnds dispo$ed of. i7^/05""<& I.A. No. S^3?' /Q5 ffllso IB aa iiiia