AJEET PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay in preferring all these intra court appeals arising out of the common order dated 24th February, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions preferred by the present appellants and others (original petitioners). Having regard to the averments made in the respective applications made by the appellants, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, supported by the affidavits, the delay occurred in preferring the appeals is condoned in the interest of justice and the respective applications are allowed. The office is directed to register all the appeals accordingly. There were 15 writ petitions filed before the learned Single Judge challenging the common order dated 30.11.07 passed by the Board of Revenue in the revision petitions filed by the appellants and others. The said petitions came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the common order dated 24.2.2011, Being aggrieved by the said common order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioners of 11 writ petitions have preferred the present 11 intra court appeals before this court. Since all these appeals involved similar sets of facts and similar questions of law, they were directed to be heard together, and are now being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Though the cases have chequered history, the factual matrix that has emerged from the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record is that there existed a forest land known as "Jhunjhunu Beed", which was transferred by the Revenue Department to the Forest Department vide Government order dated 2.5.59. The said land being forest land over which the State Government had proprietary rights, Government of Rajasthan published a notification being No. 7(371)R.V/64 Jaipur dated 9.1.69, declaring the said lands in Khasra Nos. 1268, 1263, 1328, 1329, 1330, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1339, 1340, 1341, 1342, 1343, 1344, 1345 and 1346 as the "protected forest", under Section 29(1) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). In the said notification, the Government had also directed the Forest Settlement Officer/Assistant Forest Settlement Officer to make enquiry into the existence of the rights of the private persons, if any, in or over the said forest land in view of Section 29(3) of the said Act. It further appears that thereafter a proclamation was published under Section 4 of the said Act in Rajasthan Raj Patra dated 31.7.69 requiring the persons claiming any right in or over the said forest land within three months from the date of the said publication, however, none had made any claim. Accordingly, The declaration made in the Notification dated 9.1.69 for declaring the lands covered under the said notification as the "protected forest" became final.

(3.) Subsequently during the period 1975-1980 the present appellants and/or their predecessors approached the Assistant Forest Settlement Officer requesting him to exclude the disputed portions of lands from the limits of said 'protected forest', on the ground that they were in possession of the said disputed portions of lands and were cultivating the same. The Assistant Forest Settlement Officer by various orders like dated 30.4.75, 7.3.76, 17.5.76, 22.7.76, 29.10.76, 9.1.80, 16.6.80, 17.6.80, 18.6.80, 16.9.80 and 17.9.80 excluded such portions of disputed lands on which appellants and their predecessors had made claims, out of the area declared as the "protected forest" under the guise of exercising powers under Rule 12(3) of the Rajasthan Forest (Settlement) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The said orders passed by the Assistant Forest Settlement Officer on various dates were challenged by the Department before the Collector, Jhunjhunu by preferring appeals, however, the same were dismissed on the point of limitation vide the order dated 22.9.1990. The Department had preferred the appeals against the said order before the Board of Revenue, however, the same were also dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 7.8.95. The Department, therefore, had preferred writ petitions before this court challenging the said orders of the Board of Revenue. The said Writ petitions came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 34.11.2001 holding that the issue involved being of public importance, the matters were required to be remanded and decided on merits after considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, and that the said cases should not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation.