Staff Reporter
Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court delivered a judgement saying that until such time that land records are corrected and the occupants of the land in issue are given due notice, an opportunity of hearing and the final decision taken by the state authorities, there would be no process initiated to evict the petitioners.
The order was issued in a case regarding the freeing of land that authorities claimed as reserve forest (RF) land, but the Revenue Department records say otherwise.
Disposing of a batch of petitions, the single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Mazumdar found itself in agreement with the contention of petitioners to the extent that the notices issued to the petitioners were devoid of sufficient details. The petitioners are residents of Katahbari, Nijarapar Katahbari, Datalpara Nalapara, Kalapani, and Kalapani Garobasti in Kamrup (Metro) district-parts of which the forest department claims to be forest land and part of Fatasil Reserved Forest.
However, at the time of declaration of the aforesaid Fatasil Reserved Forest, the Revenue authorities did not update and correct the entries in the revenue records, as a result of which the land comprised within the Fatasil Reserved Forest continued to be shown in the records either as government lands and/or as Annual Patta lands and there was, thus, an overlap between the revenue map and the forest authority map in respect of the area. The entire area of Fatasil Reserved Forest, measuring over 5009 bighas, has been recorded as either Annual Patta lands, Periodic Patta lands or government lands in the revenue records.
It was emphasized by the petitioners on their respective portions of land that they have not only been issued Aadhaar cards and photo identity cards by the Election Commission of India, but some of them have also been issued Ration cards and in some cases even land revenue and property tax had been collected by the concerned government authorities.
It remains a fact that the revenue records did not classify the land declared by a notification in 1966 as forest land. Therefore, the Court expressed the opinion that unless the revenue records are initially corrected, the misconception would continue to prevail.
The Court expected that the state authorities would take necessary and due steps in accordance with the law and laid down procedure to have the records corrected before steps are taken to free land declared as reserve forest land from alleged encroachers and/or from non-forest use.
Regarding the notices served to the petitioners, as the Court found that the notices issued do not satisfy the requirements of law and are devoid of material particulars, the natural corollary is that such notices would deprive the petitioners of an effective opportunity to reply, thus violating the principles of natural justice, so it interfered with the notices.
Such interference, however, neither restrains the state authorities from issuing proper and lawful notices to occupants of portions of land which, according to the authorities, fall under the declared reserve forest area, nor restrains the state authorities from taking up such lawful measures to reclaim the land declared as reserved forest land.
The court further stated that occupants who receive such notices would be entitled to reply to them along with all documentary evidence in support of their reply. It is only thereafter that the respondents would come to a final decision, which shall be made known to the occupants before they are required to vacate the land, in the event the decision of the authorities goes against the petitioners.
It is also provided that in case the State proposes to resort to eviction of encroachers and unauthorized occupants from the land in occupation of the petitioners, the process laid down by the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court regarding eviction shall be strictly followed by the State authorities.
"It goes without saying that till such time that the occupants of the land in issue are given due notice along with an opportunity of hearing and a final decision is taken by the State authorities, there would be no process initiated by the respondent authorities to evict the petitioners," the HC ruled.
Also Read: Plantation drive in Rengma Reserve Forest to restore reclaimed land