JAY PAL GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Narayan Shukla, J.:- Heard Mr.Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Ad ­vocate assisted by Ms.Shraddha Agarwal, Dr.Salil Kumar Srivatava and Mr.Hari Om Singh, learned counsels for the petitioners and Mr.D.K.Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State as well as Mr.A.R.Masoodi, learned Advo ­cate.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Prescribed Au ­thority/Deputy Director, Dudhwa Tiger Reserve Division, Pallia, Kheri, whereby they have been evicted from the forest land as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chief Conservator of Forest and Field Director, Dudhwa Tiger Reserve, Lakhimpur Kheri upholding the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority has passed the order in exercise of power provided under Section 61 -B(2) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (as amended vide The Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2000) as well as under Sec ­tion 34-A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (as amended in 2002 and 2006).

(3.) THE petitioners claim protection under the Scheduled Tribes and other Tra ­ditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (in short 'For ­est Rights Act, 2006'), which according to them, has overriding effect over the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Besides it they claim that they are in possession over there since the time of their ancestors and are carrying on business to earn their bread and butter since 1928. They also claim that their evictions are violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Govern ­ment of A.P. Versus Collector and others, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 472. It is also their case that the shops in the Mandi were allotted to the petitioners in the year 1928 on yearly lease rent on the application moved by their father. Accord ­ingly their shops are established having electricity connection etc.