NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD MUSSORIE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a notification dt. 2nd Sept, 1993 issued under S. 18 (1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 the concerned area was declared to be included within the limit of the sanctuary. Subsequently, a notification was issued on 11th of Jan, 1994, under S. 21 of the said Act being a proclamation specifying the area as sanctuary requiring persons claiming any right mentioned in S. 19 of the said Act to lodge their claim within the period specified in S. 21 (b) of the said Act. The petitioner claimed to have lodged its claim on 28th of Feb. 1994, which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition, admittedly, within the time specified. It is alleged that no steps has been taken on the basis of the said claim lodged by the petitioner. On the other hand, on its enquiry by a letter dt. 28th of May, 1997, it has been disclosed that the said land has been decided to be included within the sanctuary. The petitioner points out that he was not given opportunity of hearing nor any compensation has been given to him. According to the petitioner he is the owner of the property and as such entitled to manage the same.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. L. P. Naithani for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Mr. Naithani stresses on the objection to the declaration of the area as sanctuary.

(3.) THE claim that the petitioner, being the owner, is entitled to the management of the property is not a claim which is permissible to be claimed unless it is excluded under S. 24 (2) (b ). Our above interpretation finds support from S. 27 which imposes restriction on entry to sanctuary to every person other than (a) public servant (b) a person permitted by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the Officer authorised to reside inside the sanctuary (c) a person having right over immovable properties inside the sanctuary. THE right exempted from restriction of S. 27 can arise only when either such property though situated within the sanctuary but is not included in the declaration or by reason of its exclusion after declaration in terms of S. 24 (2) (a ). THErefore, the claim of management is dependent in this case on the decision of the Collector while exercising power under S. 24.