MANTU GOPAL DEOGHARIA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present application, the applicants have sought to add themselves as party respondents to the writ petition on the ground that they are necessary and proper parties herein. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the entire plot no. 164 has been declared as "protected forest" by virtue of notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on May 17, 1956 and the land is vested with the Government since then. Section 29 (1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 demonstrates that the State Government may by notification declare the provisions of Chapter- IV of the Act applicable to any forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserved forest, but which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights. According to learned counsel, the term "property of Government" indicates vested land. Learned counsel has submitted that as the plot in question is vested with the forest department by virtue of notification dated May 17, 1956, the applicants are necessary parties to the writ petition and should be granted an opportunity of hearing when the writ petition is dealt with.

(2.) Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite parties/writ petitioners that the Act of 1927 is bereft of any provision for vesting of land. The names of the petitioners appear as occupiers in the C.S. and R.S. record of rights indicating that the portion of the plot owned and occupied by them have not been vested. The petitioners' plot has been recorded as baid in the record of rights and does not form part of the land declared as protected forest by the State.

(3.) Placing reliance on the authorities in Rajkumar Rajinder Singh v/s. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others reported in (1990) 4 Supreme Court Cases 320 and M/s. Jetmull Bhojraj v/s. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 1966 SCC Online Pat 85, learned counsel has submitted that there is no provision in Chapter-IV for transfer of possession of any property in favour of the Government by virtue of notification under section 29. The proviso to the section can at best authorise the Forest Officer to prevent felling, selling or appropriating forest trees pending inquiry into the matter. As such, the applicants have no role to play in the present writ petition which is primarily for compliance of a direction of a coordinate bench of this Court passed by an order dated 31st July, 2019 passed in W.P. 2819 (W) of 2018. Learned Counsel has further submitted that in view of construction of a super speciality hospital in the plot in question, the said plot cannot be said to be included in "protected forest".