Forest records lacking plot-specific identification cannot establish that privately recorded land is reserved forest.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited selected the petitioner for a retail outlet at a location between Khaira and Garhi, Jamui, on land offered at Khata No. 10, Plot/Khesra No. 739.

After the petitioner received a dealership appointment and the District Magistrate’s NOC, she installed the outlet’s infrastructure. The Forest Department subsequently asserted that the site fell within reserved forest land and objected to its operation.

A DCLR report dated 6 September 2021 treated the land as raiyati land, but the District Magistrate’s decision dated 11 July 2022 found that most of the plot was reserved forest.

The petitioner challenged that decision. During the writ proceedings, the Court stayed its operation and directed a survey; the petitioner also sought permission to sell fuel held at the outlet

1. Whether the land on which the petitioner’s retail outlet was established formed part of reserved forest land or was raiyati land

2. Whether the District Magistrate’s decision dated 11 July 2022 should be set aside and the respondents directed to issue the certificates and NOCs required for operating the outlet

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or judicial precedent as the basis for its decision.

The Forest Department relied on the Forest (Conservation) Act and reserved-forest records, while the Court assessed the competing claims by reference to the forest notification and map, revenue records, the DCLR report, and the recorded chain of title.

The Court’s reasoning treated the absence of parcel-specific identification in the forest materials, alongside the revenue and title materials, as supporting the conclusion that the disputed land was raiyati land

The Court considered the DCLR report, which described the petitioner’s 0.31-acre land as raiyati, and the Additional Collector’s order in the jamabandi-cancellation proceeding.

Although that proceeding was stayed and no final order was made, the order recorded that the forest map and notification did not specify the disputed khata and khesra numbers, and that the land was recorded in private names with a registered conveyance supporting the relevant jamabandi

The Court relied on those materials and the asserted continuity of title to conclude that the land was private raiyati land, rather than reserved forest.

It also noted that no one appeared for the Forest Department to substantiate its position at the relevant hearing

On that basis, it rejected the respondents’ forest-land objection and granted relief to the petitioner

It allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to issue the necessary certificates for operating the petrol pump; it further directed the District Magistrate and District Transport Officer to issue the requisite NOC forthwith