HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS . (APPELLANT) Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. (RESPONDENT)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9697-9698 OF 2014
(2JB, KRISHNA MURARI and AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH JJ., delivered by KRISHNA MURARI J.)
Facts: The present appeals are directed against the impugned order and judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby, the Writ Petition preferred by the respondents herein was allowed, and the eviction of the Appellants was directed from the disputed land.
Issues:
- Whether the relief granted in the Judgment of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh is only applicable to SC/ST/ other backward communities?
- Whether the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could have re-appreciated the evidence adduced to come to its findings?
Advocate on behalf of counsel for appellants: Shri Anil Kaushik
Advocate on behalf of counsel for respondents: Shri S.R.Singh assisted by Shri Kamlendra Mishra
Held: The court allowed the present appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the high court, while holding that, “both the issues have been answered in favour of the Appellants herein, that is to say, the remedy granted under the Banwasi Sewa judgment is available to the appellants herein, and the reappreciation of evidence done by the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Article 226, in our opinion, is bad in law and is liable to be struck down.” The court thereby confirmed the orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and Additional District Judge. The court also rendered the contempt petitions infructuous owing to the judgment passed in favour of the appellant.
With respect to the first issue, the court observed that, “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.”
With respect to the second issue, the court observed that, “the concurrent findings of the lower courts are neither perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction. In such a scenario, wherein neither of the conditions were satisfied, the High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence in writ jurisdiction and come to a different conclusion.”
