UMANG KEJRIWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common issues are involved in all these cases, they are taken up together "for hearing" and are being disposed of, by a common order. By invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of B.F. Case Nos.1 and 23 of 2011, B.F. Case Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 2012, including the orders, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment Act, 1989) and also under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act has been taken against these petitioners, in the aforesaid cases lodged separately but on a common allegation that the petitioners- the Director and the employees of M/s Electro Steel Integrated Limited (now M/s Electro Steel Steels Limited), District -Bokaro, by encroaching over the land, appertaining to Plots No.1120, 1105, 1159, 1389 and 1321 of Village Bhagabandh, Distt :- Bokaro, falling within the forest area started constructing boundary wall and thereby they indulged themselves in non-forest activities without taking permission of the Central Government under the provision of Section 2 of the Conservation of Forest Act. Earlier also on the same allegation of constructing boundary wall over the land bearing plots No.1120, 1105, 1159, 1389 and 1321, appertaining to Khata No.58, Mauza No.83, situated at Village Bhagabandh, District of Bokaro, several cases were lodged against number of employees including the Director of M/s Electro Steel Integrated Limited. Upon which cognizance of the offence under Section 33 of the Act had been taken. Those orders were challenged before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1653 of 2009, and analogous cases. This Court having taken notice of the facts that process of the notification as claimed to have been issued under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act had never been completed and that the parties have been exercising their respective rights, titles and possession over the land on the basis of registered sale-deeds executed by the raiyats in whose favour decree of declaration of right and title had been passed by the court of the competent jurisdiction, quashed the proceedings of all the cases including orders taking cognizance vide order dated 31.7.2010.

(2.) THAT order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos.9884 to 9887, which got dismissed. However, while dismissing, it was observed that the impugned order as well as the order of this Court shall not preclude the State from taking such appropriate action in the matter as may be available to it in law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that mainly on those two grounds, the entire criminal proceeding in the cases, referred to above, are being sought to be quashed, as the petitioners have derived right, title and interest over the land, in question by virtue of the sale-deeds executed by the raiyats in whose favour decree with respect to right, title and interest was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction and thereby the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence either under the Indian Forest Act or Conservation of Forest Act and as such the entire criminal proceedings are fit to be quashed. The counter-affidavits have been filed, wherein, it has been stated that by virtue of a notification issued in the year 1958 under Section 29(3) of the Act land, in question has been declared as protected forest and as such, any non-forest act by any one over the said land would fasten him with criminal liability under the Forest Act.