KARMA BHUTIA, Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a bona fide holder of Certificate of Identification dated 25-07-2006 issued by the competent authority that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community. He seeks the benefit of Section 3 of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007), of course, based on long his possession and enjoyment of forest land of an extent of 24' x 13' and 22' x 13' bounded in the East by North Sikkim Highway, in the West five storied R.C.C. building of one Shri Sonam Pintso Bhutia, Ex Assistant Conservator of Forest, four storied R.C.C. building of one Shri Tashi Bhutia, four storied R.C.C. building of one Smt. Jemima Pradhan and her father Late D. N. Pradhan, in the North one godown of one Shri D. B. Pradhan alias Damber Sardar and in the South stairway of Shri Sonam Pintso Bhutia situated at Burtuk, East Sikkim. The structure, according to the petitioner, was constructed by his grandfather in the year 1965. The petitioner claims that he made repeated representations to the respondents on 10-10-1991, 10-05-1994, 18-03-1996, 15-11-1996 and 27-01-2007 and 24-11-2007, seeking the benefit of Section 3 of the said Act; but he was made to run from pillar to post for getting allotment of the house site under the provisions of the said Act; and finally his request was turned down by the Range Officer, Gangtok Range by proceedings dated 11-01-2007, which is being impugned the writ petition. Of course, the petitioner made further representations dated 13-08-2009 and 21-04-2010, bringing to the notice of the respondents that similarly placed persons were allotted with forest house sites by the competent authority as informed to the petitioner by proceedings dated 26-11-2007, which reads hereunder:-

(2.) ACCORDING to the Mr. K. T. Bhutia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent having considered the request of similarly placed persons, ought to have considered the request of the petitioner also and, the refusal to consider the request of the petitioner and the direction dated 11-01-2007 issued to the petitioner to stop the unauthorised construction of the building, impugned in the writ petition, is discriminatory, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

(3.) WE have given our careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.