Allotment of notified forest land is void ab initio despite subsequent grant of patta.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the subject land was validly identified as notified forest land, thereby rendering the patta allotment void ab initio.

The court held

The Court held that because the land was notified forest land, the patta was invalid and the Collector's order was justified.

It also directed

The Court found no procedural impropriety in the demarcation process.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, affirming the orders dated 31.01.2024 and 20.05.2024.

01Facts

The petitioner was granted a patta for 4.90 acres of land in Village Surajpura, Chhatarpur.

¶ 2

The Collector subsequently cancelled the patta in suo-moto proceedings, asserting the land was notified Forest land.

¶ 2

The High Court directed fresh demarcation in the petitioner's presence due to natural justice violations in an earlier writ petition (W.P. 9520/2014).

¶ 2-3

The Additional Collector reaffirmed the cancellation on 31.01.2024, and the petitioner challenged this order and the subsequent dismissal of their appeal.

¶ 2-3, 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the subject land was validly identified as notified forest land, thereby rendering the patta allotment void ab initio.

¶ 10-11

ii.2. Whether the demarcation and hearing conducted by the revenue authorities complied with the principles of natural justice and the previous directions of the High Court.

¶ 9-10

03Law Applied

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which prohibits the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior Central Government approval.

¶ 7

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267, which expanded the definition of "forest" to include all areas recorded as such in government records regardless of ownership.

¶ 6-7, 11

State Revenue Department Circular dated 13.01.1997 regarding the criteria for treating land as "forest" based on standing tree density.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Court observed that following its previous remand order, a fresh demarcation was carried out in the petitioner’s presence (Annexure P-10), a fact the petitioner did not dispute.

¶ 10

The Court noted that although the petitioner argued that the land did not meet the tree-density requirements of the 1997 Circular, the Tehsildar and the Board of Revenue had consistently recorded the area as a "notified forest" as far back as 2000.

¶ 11

During the fresh demarcation and the proceedings before the Collector, the petitioner failed to provide evidence to rebut the "forest" status or raise a formal protest against the nature of the land.

¶ 10-11

Applying the T.N. Godavarman principle, the Court reasoned that if the land is earmarked as forest, any patta allotment without statutory forest clearance is legally unsustainable.

¶ 11