Right Of Forest Inhabitants For Claims Against Eviction To Be Heard By Forest Officer Not Limited To Recogonized Forest Communities : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the right of forest inhabitants for claims to be heard by Forest Officer is not limited only to certain recognized forest communities.

"This right to be heard, in our opinion, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim.", the bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed.

In this case, the land in possession of the Appellants, was declared as reserved forest, and the other part of the said land was subject to a notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act for declaration as reserved forest. They filed their claims before the Forest Settlement Officer who found that the said land has been in possession of the Appellants even prior to 1385 Fasli and thus, have a rightful claim over the said land. This was upheld by the Appellate authority. The Forest Department approached the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition. The same was allowed and eviction of appellants was ordered.

Before the Apex Court, the issue raised was whether the relief granted in the Judgment of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh is only applicable to SC/ST/ other backward communities?

In Banwasi Sewa Ashram case, certain Adivasi communities inhabiting the situate land were being evicted from their homes on grounds of the said land being subject to a Section 4 notification under the Forest Act. The Court held that the said inhabitants had a right for their claims to be heard by the Forest Officer, and it was the forest officer, who had the power to go into the merits of the case and decide the claims of the inhabitants.

In this regard, the bench observed:

"The abovementioned Banwasi Sewa Judgment (Supra), when read into detail, would show that it confers upon the inhabitants of the subject land, only a procedural right to be heard by the appropriate authority, and not a substantive right of possession/inhabitation of the land. In simpler terms, this would mean that this Court, while delivering the said judgment, did not go into the merits of each claim but only provided an appropriate forum for the claims to be heard...The object of such judgment, in our opinion, is to further the cause of substantive justice, and to ensure that every party with a valid claim over the notified land is heard in detail, and no arbitrary power to evict local inhabitants is given to the state."

The court added that the forest communities do not only consist of people from recognized Adivasi and other backward communities, but also other groups residing in the said land.

"These other groups, who do not get recognition under the law as a forest dwelling community due to several socio-political and economic reasons, are also an integral part of the said forest communities and are essential to their functioning. Further, there can also be several instances of people ancestrally being forest dwellers, however, due to lack of documentation, are not able to prove the same... While we are aware of the fact that the Appellants herein are not from a backward community and nor do they claim to be so, however, the abovementioned Banwasi Judgment (Supra), if interpreted in a narrow manner only to benefit certain recognized forest communities, would cause a great deal of harm to multiple other communities. At the sake of repetition, it must be noted that the Banwasi Judgment (Supra), only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if such authority rejects a claim, then the said claim cannot exist against the situate land.. This right to be heard, in our opinion, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim.. Further, the right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc. If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same."

The bench also found that the concurrent findings of the lower courts are neither perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction. In such a scenario, wherein neither of the conditions were satisfied, the High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence in writ jurisdiction and come to a different conclusion, it said.

"It must be noted that the introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases.", the court added.

The court therefore set aside the High Court order and restored the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer.

Case details

Hari Prakash Shukla vs State of Uttar Pradesh | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 507 | CA 9697-9698 OF 2014 | 5 July 2023

Headnotes

Forest Act- Claims againt eviction - In Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh 1986 4 SCC 753, certain Adivasi communities inhabiting the situate land were being evicted from their homes on grounds of the said land being subject to a Section 4 notification under the Forest Act. It was held that the said inhabitants had a right for their claims to be heard by the Forest Officer, and it was the forest officer, who had the power to go into the merits of the case and decide the claims of the inhabitants - whether the relief granted in the Judgment of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh is only applicable to SC/ST/ other backward communities? Banwasi Judgment (Supra), only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if such authority rejects a claim, then the said claim cannot exist against the situate land.. This right to be heard, in our opinion, must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim.. Further, the right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc. If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same. (Para 17-23)

Constitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 - High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse - The introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases. (Para 26-30)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment