SURENDRA PURTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition petitioners pray for the following reliefs :

(2.) THE background of that prayer is that petitioners claimed to be encroachers of land in the forest for a long period and the Government in its Gazette Notification, instructions and circulars -Annexures 1 to 4 have assured to take appropriate steps for settlement of such forest land with persons similarly situated like the petitioners but the State agency has not yet taken any concrete steps with respect either to joint verification or relating to settlement of the encroached forest land in favour of the petitioners. We find from Annexures 2, 3 and 4 that the State of Orissa has proposed relating to possibility of settlement of the encroached forest land with the encroachers provided the Government of India de -reserves the land in accordance with the provision in Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (in short 'the Act'). There is nothing before this Court to indicate that the Government of India or the Advisory Committee Constituted, under Section 3 of the Act have considered and granted permission for de -reservation in the manner the State Government has floated its idea in Annexure - 4. Therefore, in the absence of the Government of India as a party to this proceeding any direction to the State Government is of no avail. Apart from that, the State Government should bear in mind that by non -settlement of the encroached area from the forest at best it may result in displeasure of few encroachers but determination to conserve the forest, evict the encroachers and adopting appropriate measures to prevent encroachment are the needed most steps in the interest of humanity. The Apex Court has time and again reiterates on protection of nature for protection of the environment. (See the cases of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad etc. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1997 S.C. 1228, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 2000 S.C. 1636) Therefore, the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be, has to consider this aspect before taking any decision in relation to de -reservation of forest area for settlement either for homestead or agricultural purposes.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are homeless persons and if not the forest land, they may be rehabilitated at some other place. In that respect, if the petitioners make appropriate representations to the Collector, he shall deal with the matter in accordance with law and on that this Court express no opinion.