Anil Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33855 of 2023 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶1Heard Shri Rakesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradeep Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶2The present writ petition has been preferred for a direction to issue an ad interim order protecting and safeguarding the interest of the applicant/petitioner by means of directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful and cultivatory possession of the applicant/petitioner in the respects of the part of arazi no. 337 area 0.7590 hectare (total area 1.3790 hectare), arazi no. 387-Ka area 1.2530 hectare (total area 6.7800 hectare) and arazi no. 484 area 1.3090 hectare (total area

26.2490 hectare) situated at the village and Mauja-Mahuli, Pargana-Singarauli, Tehasil-Duddhi, District-Sonebhadra, till the disposal of the Civil Case No. Nil, Anil Kumar Vs. Forest Department under the provisions of "The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Act, 2006" (in short "the Act of 2006").

¶3It is contended that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and has been in cultivatory possession of the land in question for more than three-four decades. The claim of the petitioner is to be considered in the light of the Act of 2006 but till date the same has not been decided by the respondent authorities. It is further contended that similar controversy has earlier been raised before this Court by way of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.56003 of 2017 (Adivasi Vanvasi Maha Sabha, Chandauli v. Union of India & Ors.), which was disposed of on

11.10.2018 leaving it open to the petitioners' association to make individual application under Section 6 of the Act of 2006 for seeking recognition of their forest rights. It was also provided that, in case, any such application is made, the Gram Sabha/ Authority shall consider the same and take decision in the matter expeditiously and preferably within 12 weeks. Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 29.8.2013 in Writ-C No.44551 of 2013 (Rameshwar Chaudhary v. State of U.P. & Ors.), wherein similar controversy has been decided with following observations:-"Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the submission advanced from both sides and in the light of the facts so stated this court is not to go into the details for disposing this petition, as keeping the matter pending will be futile exercise and that will just delay the finality of the things. Petitioner claims protection as provided in The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of various Rights) Act, 2006. Accordingly, we need not to go into the merits of the matter so as to record a finding either way but at the same time we propose to dispose of this petition by giving following directions-

i) Petitioner is to file certified copy of this order within a period of one month from today before the competent authority.

ii) On receipt of the move it will be the concern of the concerned competent authority to proceed as provided under the Act and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within shortest possible time preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the move.

iii) It is observed that except in accordance with law there will be no interference in the rights of the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits as we have not gone into the merits of the petitioner's claim and thus decision of the concerned competent authority will be his independent exercise as may be permissible in law. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of."

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, has contended that the petitioner being on similar footing is also entitled for similar indulgence.

¶5Learned Standing Counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶6Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue and with consent, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the authority concerned to look into, examine and redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and considering the judgments cited-above expeditiously preferably within three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to all the stakeholders in the matter. Order Date :- 28.11.2023 Rama Kant High Court of Judicature at Allahabad