Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 58696 (ALL)

RAMA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/41942/2019 · 2025-04-27

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Prashant Bilgaiyan Registrar J Criminal

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65403-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41942 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rama Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Singh,Rajendra Singh,Ram Prakash Sharma,Santosh Kumar Tripathi,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Chandra Shukla,C.S.C.,Shailendra Kumar Awasthi Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by Chief Conservator of Forest dated 4.11.2019, which records that since details of trees standing on the plot in question on the date when the land was donated to the State since has not been furnished, nor such details are provided by the petitioners to the forest authorities, therefore, question of payment of compensation does not arise. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners points out that the land on which the standing trees exists was donated to State under the Bhoodan Yojna. Controversy had arisen as to what would happen to the standing trees on such land. After the matter was decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.3232 of 1973, the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Dr. Abdul Quddus and others, reported in 1985 (1) SCC 310, and the issue was resolved on 22.11.1984. By this judgment the Supreme Court recognized the rights of erstwhile owner over the standing trees. A decision was taken to pay compensation if such trees could not be felled. The land on which these trees are standing now forms part of Tiger Reserve at Pilibhit. The claim for payment of compensation has been rejected by the concerned officer, vide following orders:- "आपकके प्रकरण मम पतत्रावलली कके अवललोकन पर पत्रायत्रा गयत्रा कक पलीललीभलीत टत्राईगर ररजवर ककी बरत्राहली रमज अन्तगरत गत्राम - बबैल्हत्रा, परगनत्रा तहसलील पपूरनपपुर जजलत्रा पलीललीभलीत मम ससस्थित भपूकम गत्राम शकेरपपुर , परगनत्रा तहसलील पपूरनपपुर जनपद पलीललीभलीत कके तत्रात्कत्राललीन नवत्राब शली शमशपुल हसन खत्राखां व खपुशर्शीद हसन खत्राखां दत्रारत्रा भपू-दत्रान यज्ञ सकमकत कलो दत्रान पत कके मत्राध्यम सके अपनली भपूकम कदनत्राखांक 10-01- 1952 कलो दत्रान ककी गयली स्थिली, उस समय उक्त भपूकम पर सस्थित्राकपत ववृकक्षों ककी सखांख्यत्रा एवखां प्रजत्राकत ककी सपूखांचली नहहीं बनत्रायली गयली स्थिली। वतरमत्रान मम आपकके दत्रारत्रा कय ककयके गत्राम- बबैल्हत्रा कके जखांगल मम खडके ववृकक्षों ककी सखांख्यत्रा क 1 ककह उलकेख नहहीं हबै और न हली ककस-ककस प्रजत्राकत कके ककतनके ववृक आपकके दत्रारत्रा ककयके गयके हबै इसकत्रा कववरण आप दत्रारत्रा उपलब्ध करत्रायके गयके अकभलकेख हबै। अततः ववृकक्षों ककी सखांख्यत्रा यत्राचली कलो भली सपष्ट नहहीं हबै। उक्त प्रकरण मम प्रसतपुत कववरण कके आधत्रार पर मत्रा० उच्च न्यत्रायत्रालय, इलत्राहत्राबत्राद दत्रारत्रा ररट सली 30, 18291 आफ 2019 मम पत्राररत कनणरय कदनत्राखांक 31-05-2019 एवखां आपकके दत्रारत्रा प्रसतपुत ककयके गयके प्रत्यत्रावकेदन कके क्रम मम अधलोहसतत्राकरली कके दत्रारत्रा कनणरय जलयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हबै कक पपूरके प्रकरण मम यह कहली भली सपष्ट नहहीं हबै कक प्रश्नगत भपूकम कके मपूल मत्राजलक दत्रारत्रा दत्रान ककी गयली भपूकम पर दत्रान कके समय ककतनके ववृक सस्थित्राकपत स्थिके। आपकके उक्त प्रत्यत्रावकेदन मम यह सपष्ट नहहीं हबै , कक आपकलो ककतनके ववृक दत्रान मम कमलके तस्थित्रा ककन ववृकक्षों कत्रा आप बत्राजत्रार दर सके ककीमत चत्राहतके हबै। अततः उक्त कत्रारणक्षों सके प्रश्नगत भपूकम पर सस्थित्राकपत ववृकक्षों कके सम्बन्ध मम आपकत्रा सवत्राकमत्व असवलीकत्रार करतके हहयके प्रत्यत्रावकेदन कत्रा कनसतत्रारण ककयत्रा जत्रातत्रा हबै।" 3. During the course of hearing, our attention is invited to a reply given by the Divisional Forest Officer, Tiger Reserve, Pilibhit in which 39560 trees are admitted to be standing over the land for the last more than 64 years or above. Such detail has been furnished in a RTI reply to the petitioner. A communication issued by the Conservator of Forest dated 22.4.2016 has also been relied upon in which the size of trees are determined for the purposes of payment of compensation. It is submitted that these documents have not been taken into consideration by the authorities for payment of compensation, and therefore the impugned decision cannot be sustained. The material aforesaid has been referred to in paras 52 to 54 of the writ petition, which are replied in para 19 to 21 of the counter affidavit. There is no specific denial of the reports of the authorities, which are referred to above. 4. We also find that there has been a long litigation in respect of the claim in question and previous petitions were also disposed of with a direction to the authorities to examine the matter. It is pursuant to this order that the impugned order has been passed. 5. The only reason on which petitioners' claim is rejected is that the details of trees have not been furnished, and therefore, petitioner's claim itself cannot be considered. 6. Once the forest authorities have submitted report and have quantified the number of trees standing on the plot in question and also determined the criteria on the basis of which the compensation was to be paid, we cannot approve of the order of Chief Conservator of Forest rejecting the petitioner's claim. There is an obvious non-consideration of material available on record. As such the impugned order passed by the Chief Conservator Officer cannot be sustained. 7. In the facts of the case, we permit the petitioners to approach the respondent no.3, annexing all relevant materials in support of their claim, alongwith a certified copy of this order. The petitioners will be at liberty to annex the RTI reply and also quantify the number of trees and other material to receive compensation. Such claim would be got examined by the respondent no.3, in accordance with law, by passing an appropriate order, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. If the petitioner's claim for compensation is accepted, the authorities shall release the amount found due and payable within a period of four weeks, thereafter. 8. With the above observations/directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad