RAMA SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Forest Case No.8 of 2011 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 the petitioner, on the allegation that the petitioner- the Director of M/s Electro Steel Integrated Limited (now M/s Electro Steel Steels Limited), District -Bokaro, by encroaching over the land, appertaining to Plot Nos.1120 & 1159 of Village Bhagabandh, Distt :-Bokaro, falling within the forest area started construction work and thereby he indulged himself 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.

(2.) 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 orders dated 31.7.2010. 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.

(3.) SIMILAR was the dispute in case of Brajesh Kumar Ray and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. [2005 (3) JCR 464 (Jhr.)], where the petitioners were sought to be prosecuted by the Department of Forest when they in exercise of their rights have used the land claimed by the Department to be the forest land. While allowing the case, it was observed by this Court which reads as follows :-