No Encroachment Can Be Permitted On Govt Or Forest Land On Grounds Of "Religious Feelings": Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petition filed by Shri Shantinath Digamber Jain Atishay Shetra seeking regularisation of the possession of ghair-mumkin pahad forest land, in their favour claiming that the centuries-old statues of Lord Mahaveer Swamy and Lord Parshwanath were unearthed from the land and thus as per the Jain scriptures, it was a holy place on which the statues needed to be protected by raising construction.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar observed that no encroachment could be allowed upon the forest land on the grounds of unsubstantiated religious feelings. It was held that the Shetra did not mention the date on which or even the khasra number from which the statues were unearthed. They entered and dug up the forest land without taking any permission from the concerned authorities. The Court said:

“No encroachment can be permitted upon the Government land, more particularly upon the forest land on the ground of religious feelings. Shri Shantinath Digamber Jain Atishay Shetra has not even mentioned the day on which idols were unearthed, the particular khasra numbers from where the idols were unearthed and have tried to build the case on religious sentiments. They have not taken any permission from the Forest Department or the Government before entering upon the ghair mumkin pahad and before digging the mountains. The theory of unearthing of idols on the pretext of religious tenets do not find favour with the Court.”

Background

The civil petition was decided along with a PIL filed by a petitioner who alleged encroaching of the forest land by the Shetra without seeking any approval from the Forest Department. It was contended that Shetra already possessed much land adjacent to the ghair-mumkin pahad and they were just trying to encroach on the latter without any authority.

The petitioner also submitted that despite being aware of the PIL being pending, Shetra filed the civil petition without mentioning the fact of a pending PIL.

On the contrary, the Counsel for the Shetra argued that in light of the unearthed statues, the religious feelings should be taken note of by the Court and the concerned forest land should be regularized in their favour.

Rejecting the argument presented by the counsels for the Shetra, the Court observed that firstly, as per the revenue records, the forest land belonged to the Forest Department, and hence, the Shetra had no right to encroach the same. It was highlighted that the argument of unearthed statues was not appealing because there was no justification for how the Shetra went to these mountains and dug those up without any authority to unearth the idols.

Secondly, the Court also pointed out that it was an admitted fact of the Shetra that they had moved an application to the Forest Department and then to the Collector, seeking regularization of the land in their favour. Hence, they were aware that the land belonged to the Forest Department and thus they were encroachers.

Thirdly, the Court also accepted the argument of the petitioner that it was apparent from the records that Shetra already possessed adjoining lands and was attempting to encroach the ghair-mumkin pahad without any authority.

Hence, the Court held that the civil petition filed by the Shetra deserved to be dismissed due to encroachment upon the forest land without valid permission and also because the pendency of PIL was not disclosed while filing the petition.

Accordingly, the civil petition filed by Shetra was dismissed and the PIL filed by the petitioner was allowed. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shetra out of which Rs. 2 lakhs were ordered to be given to the petitioner for bringing the matter into the limelight and Rs. 3 lakhs to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services.

Title: Shankar Lal v State of Rajasthan & Ors., connected with Shri Shantinath Digamber Jain Atishay Shetra v the Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 262