Jharkhand HC Rejects Claim Over Protected Forest Land, Says Title Plea Insufficient For Immunity From Prosecution Sans Substantiated Document Evidence

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that merely asserting a claim of ownership is insufficient to secure protection from prosecution for encroachment of protected forest land, unless this claim is substantiated by a title document that can reasonably support the petitioner's legal right to the property in question.Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “The proprietary title can devolve by a method known to law such as inheritance, testamentary succession, registered sale deed or gift deed which needs to be specifically pleaded and proved. The source of title along with the chain of title needs to be disclosed with certainty. It is a trite law that no one transfers a better title than he himself has.”“Unless the person from whom one claims to acquire title had valid title over it, there cannot be any devolution of title. Mutation and issuance of rent receipts will be of no avail, as mutation neither creates nor extinguishes his title. Mere raising of a plea of title cannot grant immunity from prosecution, unless such plea is founded on a document of title from which a prima facie inference can be drawn regarding the colour of right of the petitioner over such property,” the Court added.The aforementioned decision was rendered in three criminal miscellaneous petitions that pertained to identical issues of fact and law, and were being heard collectively.All three criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed with the aim of quashing the entire criminal proceedings, including the summoning order issued in the C.P. Case, where a prima facie case had been established under Sections 33 and 63(c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.The central question addressed in these petitions was whether a case involving a protected forest, as notified under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, allegedly encroached and seized by private individuals claiming ownership over the forest area, could have its cognizance quashed.In two of these petitions, the forest guard's offense report served as the foundation for the forest cases. Cognizance was taken based on the prosecution report submitted by the forest range officer. The prosecution's argument was that a land area comprising 6 Plots measuring 71.83 acres in Mouza Siyaljori had been declared a protected forest by Notification C/F-17014/58-1429R dated 24.05.1958. The petitioners were accused of encroaching upon this protected forest area, constructing boundary walls, and establishing various units of Electro-steel Integrated Limited and Electro-steel Steels Limited.In the third petition, the case involved the encroachment by the same company onto 2 plots through the construction of a road, which was claimed to be within the protected forest area designated by the same notification.In reference to Notification No. C/F-17014/58-1429R dated 24.05.1958, the counsel for the petitioners argued that this notification was not final. They contended that before the final notification, both the government's rights and those of private individuals needed to be examined. The petitioners further asserted that no such inquiry had been conducted to date, and no Forest Settlement Officer had been appointed by the State to carry out such an examination. Without such an inquiry, the notification could not be considered final, and it could not affect the private rights of the involved parties. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 mandates an inquiry into the rights of the local people.The same notification was also cited in relation to 44 criminal cases filed against the company and its officials. These cases were subsequently dismissed by this Court, as detailed on pages 15 to 17, and some of them were subject to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).The petitioners further contended that they were not specifically implicated in these offenses. Allegations were made against the company, not against the individual petitioners. The lands in question were legally acquired by the company through registered sale deeds and were duly transferred in the company's name.The State's argument, on the other hand, was that M/s Electrosteel Steels Ltd. had encroached upon approximately 220 acres of notified and demarcated forest land in villages Bhagabandh, Siyaljori, Hutupathar, and Bandhdih under the jurisdiction of Bokaro Forest Division. This encroachment occurred when the company attempted to establish a steel plant at a site different from the permitted one, i.e., Village Parbatpur, Block Chandankiyari, District Bokaro. The State contended that this action violated the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.Furthermore, the Forest Department took legal action against M/s Electrosteel Steels Ltd. under Sections 33 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act for encroaching upon 220.88 acres of forest land. Forest officials found evidence of non-forestry activities, such as dozering, leveling, digging, and construction work, carried out by the company's employees on...

Jharkhand HC Rejects Claim Over Protected Forest Land, Says Title Plea Insufficient For Immunity From Prosecution Sans Substantiated Document Evidence

Bhavya Singh

Tags