Collector Directed to Adjudicate Challenge to Forest Rights Patta Allegedly Obtained via Manipulation and Forgery

The petitioner, Mazrul Haque, claims continuous possession of land (Khasra No. 476, 0.43 hectare) in Village Devgai for approximately 40 years, asserting his name is duly recorded in revenue records.

He alleges that respondent authorities (2 to 4) illegally granted a patta (land title) for the same land to respondent No. 5, Dilwasi, without following mandatory procedures under the Forest Rights Rules or receiving an application from her.

The petitioner contends that RTI documents reveal the patta was obtained through manipulated and forged entries.

Despite submitting a representation to the Collector for cancellation of the allotment, no action was taken, leading to the filing of this writ petition.

1. Whether the respondent authorities illegally granted the patta to respondent No. 5 in violation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007.

2. Whether the Court should direct the Collector to adjudicate upon the petitioner’s pending representation regarding the alleged forged allotment.

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, which prescribe the mandatory procedures for the recognition, verification, and allotment of forest land rights.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to address administrative inaction, specifically the failure of the Collector to exercise jurisdiction over a filed representation concerning alleged fraud and procedural non-compliance.

The Court focused on the petitioner’s grievance regarding administrative inertia. The petitioner presented a prima facie case of long-standing possession and alleged that the allotment to respondent No. 5 was vitiated by fraud and non-compliance with the Rules of 2007.

Rather than adjudicating the factual disputes regarding the forgery or the validity of the patta itself, the Court noted that the Collector—the competent authority—had failed to decide on the petitioner's representation.

The Court determined that the most appropriate remedy was to compel the executive authority to perform its statutory duty by evaluating the evidence and hearing all affected parties, thereby ensuring due process.

The Collector must afford an adequate opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including respondent No. 5, and pass a decision within four months from the receipt of the order.