HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1001 · Decided: 05-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1001
HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9697-9698 of 2014)
JULY 05, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Forest Act, 1927: s. 4 – Declaration of reserved forest – Forest
inhabitants – Right to be heard by Forest Officer – On facts, land
in possession of the appellants-bhoomidars, declared as reserved
forest – Initiation of eviction drive against the appellants – Forest
Settlement Officer held that the appellant had a rightful claim over
the said land – Writ petition by the Forest Department – Allowed by
the High Court and directed eviction of the appellants – Review
petition there against also dismissed – On appeal, held: Right of
forest inhabitants to be heard on the claims by the Forest Officer is
not restricted only to certain forest communities – Right to be heard,
must be granted to all claiming possession of the subject land, and
the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during
the said hearing, by the competent authority – Right to enjoy
possession of any land notified u/s. 4 is not only limited to Adivasi
communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based
on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc – Right to
inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities –
Appellants are not from a backward community and nor do they
claim to be so, thus, have right to be heard by the Forest Officer –
Furthermore, the concurrent findings of the lower courts neither
perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction –
Re-appreciation of evidence done by the High Court while exercising
its inherent powers u/Art. 226, bad in law and is liable to be struck
down – Thus, the impugned order and judgment not liable to be
sustained and is set aside – Constitution of India, 1950 – Art. 226 .
Allowing the appeals and dismissing the contempt petitions,
the Court
HELD: 1.1 It must be noted that forest communities do
not only consist of people from recognized Adivasi and other
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1001 : 2023 INSC 600
1001
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
backward communities, but also other groups residing in the said
land. These other groups, who do not get recognition under the
law as a forest dwelling community due to several socio-political
and economic reasons, are also an integral part of the said forest
communities and are essential to their functioning. Further, there
can also be several instances of people ancestrally being forest
dwellers, however, due to lack of documentation, are not able to
prove the same. [Para 20][1006-G; 1007-A]
1.2 The appellants are not from a backward community and
nor do they claim to be so, however, the Banwasi judgment, if
interpreted in a narrow manner only to benefit certain recognized
forest communities, would cause a great deal of harm to multiple
other communities. It must be noted that the Banwasi judgment
only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if
such authority rejects a claim, then the said claim cannot exist
against the situate land. [Para 21][1007-B-C]
1.3 This right to be heard, must be granted to all claiming
possession of the subject land, and the substantial right of
possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by
the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must
be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by
those who have a legitimate claim. Further, the right to enjoy
possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act
is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest
dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence,
date of original possession, etc. If the right to inhabit the said
lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can
the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same.
[Paras 22 and 23][1007-C-E]
1.4 The appellants before the impugned order passed by
the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction, had two concurrent findings
in their favour by way of decisions rendered by the lower courts.
The appellants had proved their possession over the subject land
by leading evidence, and the veracity of the same, by way of proper
procedure, was tested by both the lower courts. The High Court,
however, without evidence being led by the respondents, set aside
the concurrent findings. [Para 25][1007-G-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1003
1.5 The concurrent findings of the lower courts ar

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