- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The Supreme Court had earlier disposed of a writ petition on 20-11-1986 (reported in 1986 4 SCC 753) by prescribing a detailed procedure for declaring certain disputed areas in Uttar Pradesh as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Following that decision, the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers filed the present application seeking modification or clarification of six specific aspects of the earlier order. Notice was issued to the original petitioner, a counter-affidavit was filed, and the matter was heard by the Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the method of physical demarcation of forest boundaries could be altered to allow heaps of white-painted stones, markings on trees, or wooden pegs with flags.
- Whether the deadline for completing the demarcation prescribed in the 1986 order should be extended from 15-1-1987 to 31-1-1988.
- Whether objectors should be granted three months to file objections from the date of certification by the Assistant Record Officer/Forest Settlement Officer.
- Whether Additional District Judges (ADJs) should be posted at Dudhi, Dala, Miurpur, Babhni and Anapara to hear appeals under the scheme.
- Whether, until appellate work is available, the ADJs may discharge ordinary judicial work in the District & Sessions Court, Mirzapur.
- Whether the representative of Banwasi Seva Ashram should be withdrawn from the three-member Supervisory Board constituted in the 1986 order.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Writ Petition decision dated 20-11-1986, reported at (1986) 4 SCC 753 | Established the procedural framework for declaring disputed land as reserved forest and constituted supervisory mechanisms. | Served as the primary order sought to be modified; the Court evaluated each requested alteration against the framework laid down in this precedent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court addressed each of the six prayers sequentially:
- Demarcation Method: As there was no opposition, the Court permitted demarcation by heaps of stones, tree markings or wooden pegs.
- Posting of ADJs: Again unopposed, the Court endorsed the posting of one ADJ each at Dudhi, Dala, Miurpur, Babhni and Anapara, noting that the Allahabad High Court had already been requested to make such postings. The State Government was directed to renew its request within ten days.
- Extension of Demarcation Deadline: The State sought an extension to 31-1-1988. The Court found “no justification” for so long an extension and, in view of serious opposition, granted a shorter extension until 30-6-1987.
- Time to File Objections: Correspondingly, the Court extended the period for filing objections until 31-7-1987.
- Duties of ADJs Pending Appeals: The Court clarified that if appellate work was insufficient, ADJs could perform regular duties in Mirzapur, provided that the forest-related work did not suffer.
- Representation of Banwasi Seva Ashram: The State requested removal of the NGO’s representative from the supervisory Board. The Court refused, stating it did “not intend to make any dislocation in the working at this stage.”
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The application was partly allowed and partly rejected.
- Prayer 1 (demarcation method) – Allowed.
- Prayer 2 (extension of demarcation deadline) – Partly Allowed; deadline extended only to 30-6-1987.
- Prayer 3 (time for objections) – Allowed until 31-7-1987.
- Prayer 4 & 5 (posting and interim duties of ADJs) – Allowed, subject to High Court concurrence and safeguarding of scheme-related work.
- Prayer 6 (removal of Banwasi Seva Ashram representative) – Rejected.
Implications: The decision fine-tunes the implementation timeline and administrative arrangements without altering the foundational scheme set in 1986. No new legal precedent was created; the ruling primarily affects the parties by adjusting deadlines, clarifying administrative logistics, and maintaining civil-society oversight in the supervisory Board. No costs were awarded.
1. The writ petition was disposed of in this Court on 20-11-1986 (1986) 4 SCC 753 laying down the detailed procedure to be followed in the matter by declaration of the disputed areas as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The respondents being the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers have now put an application for modification/clarification of the order. Six aspects have been placed for consideration, namely:
“(1) Permitting demarcation by making heaps of stones and painting them white, or making on trees or fixation of wooden pegs with flags;
(2) An order extending time to complete demarcation of the areas covered by Section 4 notification up to 31-1-1988;
(3) An order granting time of three months to the objectors to file their objections from the date a certification is issued by the Assistant Record Officer/Forest Settlement Officer;
(4) An order directing the posting of Additional District Judges at Dudhi, Dala, Miurpur, Babhni and Anapara;
(5) An order providing that till the time appellate work is available, the learned Additional District Judges may discharge normal judicial functions in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Mirzapur;
(6) An order withdrawing the representative to be nominated by the Banwasi Seva Ashram from the Commission.”
Notice was given to the petitioner of the petition and a counter-affidavit has been filed. Parties have been heard.
2. There is no opposition to have demarcation by making heaps of stones or marking on trees or fixation of wooden pegs. The first prayer is, therefore, allowed. There is similarly no opposition to posting of Additional District Judges at the five places named. These postings have been done by the Allahabad High Court on the request of the State Government. A direction in that behalf is already contained in the main order. While no variation is sought about the three places of Dudhi Tehsil in the present application, the postings in Robertsganj Tehsil has been asked to be made at Babhni and Anapara. When requested by the State Government to post these Additional District Judges — one at each of these five places, we hope and trust, the High Court would find it convenient to do so. The State Government shall make the request within ten days from today.
3. In the impugned order we had fixed 15-1-1987 as the outer limit for purposes of demarcation. The prayer to extend it till the end of January 1988 has been seriously opposed and we also see no justification to extend the time beyond one year of what had been initially granted. We extend that time till 30-6-1987. The time for filing of objections is extended till 31-7-1987.
4. As soon as objections are filed and final orders are made, there would be work for Appellate Judges. At any rate if the Appellate Judges are of the view that they do not have adequate work it is open to them to function as Additional District Judges in the judgeship of Mirzapur. The District Judges of Mirzapur as also the Appellate Judges, must, however, ensure that work in hand under the scheme contained in our order should not suffer.
5. We had directed the setting up of a Board of Commissioners to supervise the operation and this Board was to consist of three members — Shri Bhiman, ex-Chairman of the State Board of Revenue, Dr Vasudha Dhagamwar and a representative of the Banwasi Seva Ashram. The State Government has raised objections to the effect that no representative of the Banwasi Seva Ashram may be nominated to the Board. We do not intend to make any dislocation in the working at this stage. There will be no order for costs.
Alert