IBRAHIM HASAN KOREJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 12.06.2018, passed by the respondent no.2- the Collector, Kachchh- Bhuj. By the impugned order, the Collector has ordered to resume the lands of Village:Kadol, Tal:Bhachau, Dist:Kachchh, which are part of unsurveyed lands in Kachchh Wild Life Sanctuary, by cancelling the lease of 38 persons including of the petitioners granted for salt production. It is stated in the impugned order that the area of great Rann of Kachchh was declared as Wild Life Sanctuary by the notification dated 28.02.1986, issued by Government of Gujarat, however, on such prohibited area the Deputy Collector granted lease for salt production for the period of 1991 to 2011, which was not in consonance with the provisions of The Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (the Act). It is further stated that the Assistant Collector /Deputy Collector, Anjar-Kachchh have renewed some lease, but considering the provisions of the Act, the orders for granting lease/ renewal of the lease are required to be cancelled as the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bhuj has by his communication dated 27.12.2017, asked for immediate cancellation of the orders of granting or renewal of the lease in the areas of Wild Life Sanctuary.

(2.) Learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing with learned advocate Mr.Vaibhav Vyas for the petitioners submitted that as mentioned in the original order of 1991, for grant of lease, the lease was granted to the petitioners after the DILR took measurement of different plots allotted to individual petitioners and after proper verification that the plot given on lease was open land whereon, no tree or bead were found nor the plots were either reserved for any public use or transferred to the Forest Department. Mr.Mehta submitted that during the original lease period of 20 years, the petitioners were not found to have committed breach of any of the conditions of the lease and since the Deputy Collector was satisfied for renewal of the lease, the orders were made for renewal of lease of the petitioners. Mr.Mehta submitted that now, before the renewal period is over, the respondent no.2- the Collector has abruptly passed impugned order cancelling the lease of the petitioners without issuing any notice or affording any hearing to the petitioners. Mr.Mehta submitted that till to-day final notification under section 26A of the Act declaring the areas specified in section-18 notification is not issued. Mr.Mehta submitted that the right accrued to the petitioners to use the lands for production of salt under the lease, could not have been taken away without complying with the principles of natural justice. Mr.Mehta submitted that if the petitioners were issued with the notice and afforded hearing, the petitioners could have pointed out that continuance of the lease would not affect the area of Wild Life Sanctuary as the lease area do not form part of the area specified as Wild Life Sanctuary. Mr.Mehta also referred to the provisions of the Act to submit that when specific provision is made in the Act to comply with the principles of natural justice before ordering eviction of the persons unauthorizedly occupying the forest land and for holding inquiry to decide on the rights claimed by persons on the forest land or on the land declared as Sanctuary, at least minimal principles of natural justice of giving hearing on touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution was required to be followed before passing the impugned order.

(3.) Learned AGP Ms.Thakore submitted that after the notification was issued by the Government under Section 18 of the Act, nobody could have been allowed to acquire any right on the lands covered under the notification and therefore, original lease granted by the order of the Deputy Collector in the year,1991, was contrary to statutory provisions contained in the Act and could be said without authority of law and without jurisdiction. She submitted that in respect of lands for which declaration is made under Section 18, no other authorities except the authorities under the Act have jurisdiction to deal with the same and as provided under Section- 27 of the Act there is total restriction on the entry of any person in the Sanctuary except the persons mentioned in Section 27 which would not include the petitioners. She submitted that from the year 1999, the Deputy Conservator of Forest has repeatedly brought to the notice of the Collector that in breach of notification issued by the State Government, lease were granted to the petitioners and requested the Collector to cancel such lease, however, no instant action was taken and now pursuant to the last communication/request made by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, when the Collector has taken action by impugned order, the petitioners have come with grievance that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them. She submitted that the respondent authorities have filed Affidavit-in-Reply before this Court and placed on record the copy of notification issued under Section 18 in the year, 1986, and the map showing the area of Kachchh -Wild Life Sanctuary wherein, the lands occupied by the petitioners are shown to be falling within the Sanctuary. She submitted that when there is clear mandate in the Act not to allow any activity on the areas specified as Sanctuary and when the lands, under the lease, occupied by the petitioners are part of the area specified as Sanctuary, and when this Court has afforded sufficient hearing to the petitioners, the impugned orders may not be interfered with on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice as no fruitful purpose will be served by remanding the matter to the Collector for giving hearing to the petitioners.