BALIRAM SATNAMI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this petition seeks a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to take appropriate decision on the application for allotting the land to the petitioner for agriculture use. Initially, an application was made by the petitioner before the Collector on 10-4-2003 for allotment of the disputed land. A report dated 6-5-2003 (Annexure P-3) was submitted by Tehsildar, Takhatpur, holding that the land in dispute is recorded as 'Bade Jhad Ka Jangal' -cM+s >kM+ dk taxy-, though at present there is no forest on the land in dispute. THE Additional Collector after having considered the report declined to allot the land on 21-1-2004 (Annexure P-2) on the ground that since the land is recorded as 'Bade Jhad Ka Jangal' the allotment cannot be granted without permission of the Central Government.

(2.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue after having considered all the facts of the matter, vide order dated 11-8-2004 (Annexure P-1) affirmed the order dated 21-1-2004, passed by the Additional Collector, holding that since the land is recorded as 'Bade Jhad Ka Jangal' in revenue records, no allotment can be made without the permission of the Central Government. The petitioner has preferred this petition without praying for quashing or setting aside of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and Authority below, seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to allot the land. Per contra, Shri Alok Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is a complete bar on allotment of a forest land, including 'Bade Jhad Ka Jangal' without permission of the Central Government. The orders passed by the authorities below are just and proper. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

(3.) IN accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith". IN view of the foregoing, there is no merit in this petition. The petition is dismissed, accordingly.