BANWASI SEVA ASHRAM versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 06-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BANWASI SEVA ASHRAM 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
AUGUST 6, 1991 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ AND KULDIP SINGH, J.) 
c 
D 
Forest Act, 1927: Section 20-Dec/aration of certain areas as 
reserve forest-Claim of inhabitants of the areas-Appointment of 
Commissioners-Revival of Committee set up to monitor the work-
Deposit of money for the work-Interim orders/directions issued. 
Under Section 20 of the Forest Act, 1927 certain areas were 
declared as reserve forest. On behalf of the inhabitants of the areas, the 
petitioner filed the present Writ Petition challenging their eviction from 
the said areas. From time to time this Court had been passing interim 
orders and directions. 
This Court also appointecl Commissioners for the purpose of pre-
paration of land records, identification of forest land and the final 
action to be taken under the Forest Act. Reviewing the progress made 
so far and passing interim directions, this Court, 
"( 
E 
HELD: l. The exercise involved in the process of preparing the 
records, identification of forest land and fimd action under the Forest 
Act, is undoubtedly massive but that by itself would not justify a 
protracted proceeding. [403E) 
2. Mr. R.P. Pandey, one oUbe Commissioners has been staying at 
F 
Allahabad and he does not find it convenient to shift to the site. The 
matter has reached a stage where presence of all the officers and the 
Commissioners at the site has become almost indispensable. Not much 
of his services can he utilised if be is allowed to stay at Allahabad. It 
would, therefore, he necessary lo substitute him by appointing some 
other judicial officer as Commissioner. In his place, Sbri Prem Singh, 
G 
retired District Judge would be appointed as one of the Commissioners. 
The Registry shall take steps to intimate him of the assignment at his 
Varanasi address. [403G-H; 404A-B) 
3. With regard to the diredion for depositing Rs.20 lakhs it is 
modified as Rs.5 lakhs in view of the assurance that more funds can 
H come on requisition without loss of time. [4040) 
402 
SEVA ASHRAM v. STATE OF U.P. 
403 
4. The Chief Secretary may revive the Committee set up to 
monitor the work. [404E-F] 
5. The Executive Chairman of U.P. State Legal Aid and Advice 
Board would continue to supervise the work and send monthly reports 
to the Court. [404F-G] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 1061 
of 1982. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
M.A. Krishna Moorthy, A.S. Pundir, Din Dayal Sharma, Ms. 
Sangeeta Aggarwal, C.V. Subba Rao and Gopal Subn1maniam for 
the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
A 
B 
c 
Pursuant to our order of May 10, 1991, this matter was called on 
D 
11th July, 1991, when parties and both the Commissioners were heard. 
The report from the Executive Chairman of the U.P. State Legal Aid 
and Advice Board has been received and looked into. 
· 
The proceeding has been pending in this Court for almost nine 
years. In spite of all possible orders and directions made from time to 
E 
time no substantial progress has yet been made. The land records have 
got to be prepared; the forest land has to be identified and final action 
under the Forest Act has to be taken. The exercise involved in this 
process is undoubtedly massive but that by itself would not justify a 
protracted proceeding. 
When we made our order in May, 1991, we had a feeling that 
before the rains started there would be substantial progress. The rainy 
season has come though rains are belattd. In these two months, how-
ever, there has been no progress. 
F 
Mr. R.P. Pandey, one of the Commissioners has been staying at 
G 
Allahabad and he does not find it convenient to shift to the site. As we 
inGicated earlier, the matter has reached a stage where presence ofall 
the officers and the Commissioners at the site has become almost 
indispensable. Mr. Pandey has informed the Court that he would find 
it difficult to shift to the site. We do not think much of his services can 
be utilised if he is allowed to stay at Allahabad. It would, therefore, be 
H 
A 
B 
404 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
necessary to substitute him by appointing some other judicial officer as 
Commissioner. Mr. Pandey had done good work during the period he 
was supervising the process. We would suggest to the Secretary to the 
Commission appointed by us to make a report to us as to in what way 
Mr. Pandey can be compensated for the work done. In place of Mr. 
R.P. Pandey 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.