01Facts
The petitioner’s mother was originally granted a patta for 4.90 acres of land at Khasra No. 120/4 Ga, Village Surajpura
¶ 2The Collector subsequently cancelled the patta in suo-moto proceedings, asserting the land was notified forest land
¶ 2The petitioner challenged this before the Board of Revenue and later the High Court in W.P. No. 9522/2014, which remitted the matter for fresh demarcation in the petitioner’s presence
¶ 9Following the remand, a fresh demarcation was conducted (Annexure P-10) which confirmed the forest status of the land
¶ 5, 10The Collector subsequently passed the impugned order dated 31.01.2024, affirming the cancellation of the patta and directing the land be recorded as forest land
¶ 3, 602Issues
i.1. Whether the allotment of a patta on land subsequently identified as notified forest land is legally sustainable
¶ 7, 11ii.2. Whether the demarcation process and subsequent orders by the revenue authorities complied with the principles of natural justice and the High Court’s previous directions
¶ 9, 1003Law Applied
The Court primarily applied the principles established by the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267, which restricts the use of forest land for non-forest purposes without central approval
¶ 6, 7Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which mandates prior approval for the diversion of forest land
¶ 7State Revenue Department circular dated 13.01.1997 regarding the criteria for identifying "deemed forest" based on area and tree density
¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 Section 2
04Reasoning
The Court observed that following the remand in the earlier writ petition, a fresh demarcation was conducted in the presence of the petitioner, satisfying the requirements of natural justice
¶ 10The Court noted that the petitioner failed to dispute the fact that the land was a notified forest area during the demarcation proceedings or before the Collector
¶ 10, 11Despite the petitioner’s reliance on the 1997 circular regarding tree density, the Court found that the records of the Tehsildar and the Board of Revenue consistently categorized the land as a notified forest area
¶ 11Consequently, the court reasoned that any patta granted on notified forest land without requisite statutory clearances is void ab initio under the Godavarman precedent
¶ 7, 1105Holding
The Court held that since the land was earmarked as notified forest land and the demarcation was conducted fairly in the petitioner's presence, the cancellation of the patta was valid
¶ 11The petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders dated 31.01.2024 and 20.05.2024 were upheld
¶ 1, 12Original Court PDF
Anant Ram ChoubeyvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
