ft &'- f;' '3 ^, l! IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATUERE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P. N0. / 2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Versus -^ 1. >..--'"'^ ..••' ^>?''<y::v ..•'' 'OYi^..-' ..•" ^I^// • ^ ^y 'y 3, •Purshottam, S/o- Shri Kanwar Singh Rawat, aged about 45 years, R/o- Village- Bhithideeh Tehsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.) •Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi. 'The state of Chhattisgarh, Jhrough 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 Tehsitdar, 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 *ii*i«i^»n^ \dwi T^iiyirt'y, u>-al'<-i<i<o, Rril'('iy*< .^..^..^.^M^200 3ii^?rmR;'ii<i) awai^iriifiti) an^srq^q? (ijciijci^) S:RTI6R •dfid OT^ST 23,9^005 Shri F.5. Khare, counset Shri Bhisma Kingar, Star Shri Sandeep Dubey, &p' Heard. The petitioner has pre< 226/227 of the Constitution Ttie case of the petitior| Village %V\V^\i^a-«-^ , Foi Moihasamund. As the petition^ he started cultivating the fo| 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| •oiolo'll't *ll*lttVtt'fe><II ^Rf+i;!^ ^3lf^T3II^?T for the petitioner. o ding Counsel for respondent No.l. ^t. Adv. for respondent Nos. 2 to 9. ferred this writ petition under Article [flndia. er is that he is a permanent resident of fest Range Pithora, Tehsil & District is o, landless a9riculturist, therefore, •est land of about 6 acres situated at )tal area 800 acres since 1972 i.e. about 191 under the provisions of Forest ie then State of M.P. had gronted ious ogriculturists of Vitloge Bhetihidih :res out of that 800 acres land of ititioner herein and vilkigers of other ':•••! |o,ce"t i/i!!nges were under impression that Bhumiswami right would also be granted to -rhem by ^he (Sovemnnent, but when no action wa,s taken the petitioner along wi'^h other vM&ge.rs contacted the officers of the Forast & !5evenue De((artment and they had assured that the case.af the petitioner ond o^+ier villager's would be considered. But t5. XI-HC-78 vd'c.'q^l^lrt^^UTll'M'ld, fclrilt-l^ *l l*lrtl JS>W 3IT^$T qgcf! (ijdi^ct^) ^200 31I^?Tiplf^riq) cWr31I^9Trti«fJ(b STaTSR't-iRd sa^v even then no action has been to|<en, therefore, the petitioner alon9 with other villagers made a respondent No.7-Forest Settlem' Thereaffer, the petitioner alo approached the respondent representation to the Chief Mihi: 5.8.2004, the Joint Secretary Collector. Mahasamund for surv representation (Annexure P-2) to ^nt Officer, Pithora in the year 1994. ig with other vilkigers repeatedly authorities and again ma.de a ^ter of the State (Annexure P-3). On tto the Chief Minister directed the ^y of Compartment No.658 through Records directed the Additiona) representation immediately afte as per rute. The Additional 30.12.2004, thereafter, a map o|l and Srv.m Panchayal- Kishanpur 4 objection on 27.5.2005 (Annexu^ has been heard from the side of Now the Forast (Conserv( raferred to as "Rules of 2003")] <Bl«fn<Tllii*ini'4 feL<tl •(Fjl+riK ^sri^ian^sT the Revenue Department. On 1^.10.2004 the beputy Collector, Land Tehsildar, Pithoura for sending the survey of the Compartment No.658 ehsildar conducted the survey on Compartment No.658 was prepared Van 6ram Samiti have also yven no •e P-8 & P-9), but even then nothing •espondents authorities. ition) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter shall ids been framed and under Rule 3 of Rules of 2003 a Forest Advisjii*/ Committee ond under Rule 4 a Regionai Empowered Committee: opinion in all the metters r\ has been cons'tituled by the Central Government and thase Commit^-ees have power to decide or give zlating to the forest. The State XI-HC-78 vj-c.q <-t(iqiri<4, tj>Tn1'<1<|d, Rril't-l^'; «ll*f0l^tTTq? 3TI^5Tq^I? (^(jisl^) ^200 3ii^sr??rR-<i'i> ?raT3T^STipqR> ^espondents be directed to gront t?er rule, over 6 acres of land. Counset for the petitioner ^ipplied for user of the fand in qu< Form A & B as per Rule 6 of th s^arsR^fer SII^ST ^ovemment is required to send •t^ie proposal to •the concerned authority |jnder sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of pentral Sovernment. Uttimal-ely, •^ne Rules of 2003 for approval of the a prayer has been made that the Authorities ore not enquiring in^o cuid not taking appropriate action. Therefore, they be directed to t^ Standing Counsel for responden^ Advoccte for respondent Nos.2 to The prayer made by couns^ fair and reasonable, therefore, if proposal of petitioner examined \<\ in case proposal is found to be acc^ then respondent No.2 should senc^ accordance with the Rules of 2003 With the direction aforesm\ Consequently, M.OV-)P-No.1 stand disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. <ti|«fd4)-1tflldl'ir'fe^ -(Rf+dK ^ai^isn^n Bhumiswami right to the petitioner, OLS iubmits that the petitioner hds already stion before. the concemed authorityr in Rules of 2003, but the Forest State ike oppropriate action, to which learned Nos.l Shri Kingar & teamec! iSovt. 9 Shri Dubey, have no objection. for the petitioner appears to be just, espondent No.2 is directed to get ttie accordance with the Kules of 2003 and iptable and covered under the said rules, his report to the Central Sovernment in within a period of 06 months. I, the petition stdnds disposed of. ^1lS-/05 <& I.A. No.g^^/05 also Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge