( 2026:JHHC:17830 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No. 719 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 719 of 2020 ------ 1. Balram Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Kharag Singh, 2. Gopal Kumar Paswan @ Gopal Paswan, aged about 31 years, son of Sukar Paswan. 3. Suresh Paswan @ Suresh Ram, aged about 56 years, son of Kedar Paswan. 4. Naresh Vishwakarma, aged about 55 years, son of Prasadi Vishwakarma. All residents of village Pandeydih, Police station Giridih (M), Post office and District Giridih. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Ram Nandan Singh, father’s name not known to the petitioners, posted as Area Forest Officer, Gandey, P.O. & P.S. Gandey, District Giridih (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. V.K. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash/ set aside the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Forest Case C.C. No. 2176 of 2018 including the order taking cognizance dated 29.03.2019 wherein the cognizance of the offence ( 2026:JHHC:17830 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No. 719 of 2020 punishable under Section 33(1)(c) of the Indian Forest Act has been taken against the petitioners. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 23.11.2018, the forest guard of Khurchutta Forest Area accosted the petitioners while conducting a survey at about 4:00 P.M. and found that the petitioners contrary to the prohibition under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act have cleared the forest land for constructing house and boundary wall. On the basis of the offence report submitted by the forest guard, the aforesaid case has been instituted. Consequently, prosecution report was also submitted in the case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have not committed any offence. The place of occurrence land was settled by the then Government of Bihar in favour of Bansidhar Moulik and the said Bansidhar Moulik through his legal heirs sold part of the land to the petitioner no.1 by a registered sale deed. Similar portion of the land was also sold to Tara Devi and Usha Devi who were related to petitioner no. 2 and the other portion of the land was sold to Sri Sukur Ram and Sarju Ram who are the petitioner nos. 3 & 4. 5. It is next submitted that the petitioners got their names mutated in the Serista of State of Bihar and paid rent. The petitioners claimed that they have been residing in the place of occurrence of land since long. It is then submitted that notification No. C/F- 17023/55-2653R dated 31.08.1955 clearly goes to show that although Section 29 of the ( 2026:JHHC:17830 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No. 719 of 2020 Indian Forest Act was notified but as a consequence thereof Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act to be complied with and even today after a lapse of 30 years from the date of issuance of the said notification dated 31.08.1955, still the compliance of Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act has not been done. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 33(1)(c) of the Indian Forest Act is not made out. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Cr.M.P. be allowed. 6. Learned Spl.P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that neither in case of ‘reserved forest’ as notified under section 4 nor in the case of ‘protected forest’ as notified under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, the nature of land changes with passage of time. There is no time limitation under Section 4 or Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act. Therefore, to put up a case claiming that a piece of land has reverted to them after a period of 30 years of issuance of notification is misconceived and misleading to the core. The provisions related to “Protected Forests” have been provided under Chapter – IV, from Section 29-34. As stated earlier, a Government forest land or a land over which the Government has propriety rights, is notified as a protected forest under Section 29; which does not prescribe any time limit therefor. Once a Government Land has been notified as reserved forest or protected forest, its nature does not change with the passage of time. It is then submitted that Section 30 contemplates three situations – firstly, where trees or a class of trees in a protected forest can be declared protected; secondly, where the State ( 2026:JHHC:17830 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No. 719 of 2020 Government is empowered to close any portion of protected forest for a term not exceeding 30 years during which the rights of any private person gets suspended for the said period, and thirdly, where the State Government can prohibit the quarrying of stones, or the burning of lime or charcoal, or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process, or removal of, any forest produce in any such forest, and the breaking up or clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land in any such forest. The period of 30 years specified under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act contemplates that an area of a protected forest can be closed by the State Government for a maximum period of 30 years and during this period, the rights of private persons related to and associated with the use of such area gets suspended. After the lapse of 30 years, neither the nature of the forest changes nor the nature of the land changes, what changes is the exercise of rights of the forest dwellers and the community to use the land for activities such as collection of firewood etc. which resumes after the expiration of the aforesaid period. It is next submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument some settlement was made in favour of the vendor of the ancestors of the petitioners, but that will not save the forest land once notified under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act. Hence, it is submitted that the Cr.M.P. without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made in the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, this Court ( 2026:JHHC:17830 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No. 719 of 2020 is of the considered view that Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act empowers the State Government that it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare the provisions of Chapter-IV regarding ‘Protected Forests’ of the Indian Forest Act is applicable to inter alia any forest land or waste land which is not included in Reserved Forest, but which is the property of the government or over which government has proprietary rights or to hold on any part of the forest produce of which government is entitled. Under Section 30(c) the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette prohibit, from a date fixed as inter alia breaking up or clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land in any such forest and a period of 30 years is confined to Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act. 8. Be that as it may be, as rightly submitted by the learned Spl.P.P. in respect of Section 30(b); after 30 years of the notification, neither the nature of forest changes, nor the nature of the land changes, what changes is the exercise of rights of the forest dwellers and the community to use the land for activities such as collection of firewood etc.. Now, coming to the facts of the case, it is the case of the complainant, that the petitioners have no right to clear for building or any other purpose the forest land, which they have exactly done. In this backdrop, it is at best a defence of the petitioners that they have not done so or that place of occurrence is not forest land. But the same is certainly a disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by ( 2026:JHHC:17830 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No. 719 of 2020 this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioners in this Cr.M.P. is to be acceded to in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition without any merit is dismissed. 10. In view of the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim relief granted earlier vide order dated 28.05.2020 is vacated. 11. The Registry is directed to intimate the Court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th June, 2026 AFR/ Vedanti Uploaded on 23.06.2026