2025:UHC:4556-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 05TH JUNE, 2025 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 330 OF 2025 Sobat Singh …...Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others …..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Posti, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Posti, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. G. Narendar, C.J.) Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner is calling in question the proceedings initiated against him under Section 61-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as amended by the Uttaranchal Amendment Act, 2001, under which the petitioner was evicted from the piece of land measuring 0.0060 hectare, wherein the petitioner was having his livelihood by putting up a temporary shed and selling tea with the permissive possession of the Forest Department and he was regularly paying the lease rent. In support of his submission, he would place reliance on Annexure-3. 3. Annexure-3 reads as under:- 1 2025:UHC:4556-DB “This is hereby certified that Mr. Balbeer Singh of Dhotidhar had deposited the challan for license.” 4. On a query as to whether any proceedings have been drawn up by the Competent Authority or Licensing Authority leasing out the piece of land or permitting him to occupy and run business in that piece of land, which admittedly, is a Forest Land, and that too, Reserved Forest. 5. The law in this regard is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in any number of decisions has upheld the binding effect of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The document, i.e. so called rent receipt relied upon by learned Senior Counsel, is dated 12.07.1998. 6. Apparently, the petitioner is unable to place before this Court any proceedings which tantamount to compliance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. In the absence of such permission under Section 2, any occupation on the Forest land or any proceedings, even if drawn, by the officers of the State Forest Department without clearance under Section 2 are, per se, illegal. 7. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition is highly misconceived and unsustainable, and is 2 2025:UHC:4556-DB accordingly, rejected. 8. The dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of the petitioner to agitate his rights against the order dismissing his appeal. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. ________________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 05th June, 2025 NISHANT 3 NISHANT KUMAR Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc 00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC6 3A055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR Date: 2025.06.09 10:38:57 +05'30'