2025:UHC:5002-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Writ Petition (M/B) No.350 of 2025 16 June, 2025 Mohammad Baseer --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.277 of 2025 Mohammad Shafi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.278 of 2025 Mohammad Safi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.279 of 2025 Gulam Rasool --Petitioner Versus 2025:UHC:5002-DB 2 State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.280 of 2025 Abdul Rahman --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.288 of 2025 Mohammad Fareed --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.289 of 2025 Mohammad Baseer --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents With Writ Petition (M/B) No.354 of 2025 Mohammad Rafi --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents 2025:UHC:5002-DB 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Tanupriya Joshi, learned for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned C.S.C. along with Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. G. Narendar C. J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned C.S.C. for the State. 2. In all the writ petitions, similar rights are claimed but in different parcels of land in the same area. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Van Gujjar and a member of a nomadic forest-dwelling community with roots tracing back to the ancient times of the Puranas; that, he has been living in the land in question since the time of his ancestors and their residence in that place is traceable to 1929 at least. That, they have been using the land for grazing their buffaloes and cattle. That, on the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, they had made applications and the said applications have been registered in form B and C. That thereafter the Gram Sabha caused the proceedings on the applications made 2025:UHC:5002-DB 4 by the petitioners. 4. The Act of 2006 stipulates the consideration of the application in a particular manner i.e. Rule 4 mandates certain action by the Gram Sabha in the form of a resolution on the forest rights claimed by the applicant/interested person and forward the same to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) formed under the Rules. The SDLC, in turn, headed by Forest Officer of a Sub Division and an Officer of the equivalent rank and other members of the committee are required to examine the veracity of the claims, examine the correctness of the resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha and, thereafter, prepare Block or Tehsil wise draft record of proposed reconciliation of the Government records and forward the same to the District Level Committee constituted under Rule 7. The DLC is consisting of D.M. as the Chairperson and includes the DFO as a member would thereafter consider the claim under Rule 8 (c) and grant approval or reject the same. 5. Despite the specific role assigned to the District Level Committee and the DFO, being a member of the said District Level Committee, in the instructions forwarded to the C.S.C., the DFO has thrown up his 2025:UHC:5002-DB 5 hands and has stated that as the functions are carried out by the Committee, he is not aware as to whether any application is made or not. This attitude of the officer towards the Court cannot be appreciated. Being the District Level Officer and the Custodian of all the records at the District Level, a simple inquiry with the concerned section would have revealed as to whether any application is pending or not. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner is claiming a right under an application said to have been made under the Act of 2006. The Act consequently mandates certain consideration in a certain manner. The respondents, having not discharged their duty, cannot now under the garb of eviction, attempt to throw out and negate the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the Act of 2006. 7. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the instant writ petitions can be disposed of by restraining the respondents from attempting to evict the petitioner till consideration and disposal of his application, as mandated under the Act. It is made clear that the restraining the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land in question, will not 2025:UHC:5002-DB 6 enable the Petitioner to carry out any commercial activities, except self cultivation of the lands in question. 8. Writ petitions stand ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. This order shall be in in force till the consideration and disposal of the application in accordance with law. (G. NARENDAR, C. J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 16.06.2025 BS