- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1061 of 1982 concerned forest-land disputes in the Mirzapur District of Uttar Pradesh. On 20 November 1986 the Supreme Court issued a comprehensive order establishing mechanisms to resolve claims arising from 433 villages located south of the Kaimur range. Of these villages, 58,937.42 acres had already been declared reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, while notifications under Section 4 covered 7,89,086 acres. The Court’s jurisdiction was expressly limited to lands notified under Section 4.
Since 1986 the Court has continuously monitored implementation. The present order (dated 1 January 1993, with directions extending to 31 March 1993) clarifies the scope of survey and settlement operations, addresses pending appeals, orders a special review in 17 villages where errors were detected, dissolves the Court-appointed Board of Commissioners, and sets timelines for completion of outstanding tasks.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Through counsel Mr. Rajeev Dhavan, the petitioner contended that survey records in 17 identified forest villages wrongly recorded rights in favour of non-occupants without proper inspection or hearings, prejudicing actual occupants. A special review was therefore sought in these villages.
The opinion does not mention any detailed arguments advanced by the respondents.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court began by reiterating that its directions apply exclusively to “forest villages” covered by Section 4 notifications, not to lands already declared reserved forest under Section 20. Relying on the Seventh Report of Justice B. L. Loomba, which lists 265 such villages, the Court limited all survey and settlement operations to those areas, leaving revenue-village work to the State authorities under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Observing that work before Forest Settlement Officers was nearly complete and that 25,760 appeals remained pending before Additional District Judges, the Court set 31 March 1993 as the target date for disposal of all appeals, requesting administrative oversight by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
The Court accepted the joint findings of the Commissioners, Justice Loomba, and the petitioner’s counsel that patent errors existed in 17 specified villages. It therefore ordered a special review limited to cases where individuals filed complaints or where the Forest Department believed records were incorrect, again imposing a 31 March 1993 deadline.
Because the foundational tasks were substantially finished, the Court dissolved the Board of Commissioners (Mr. Prem Bhai and Mr. Prem Singh) effective 31 March 1993, though Justice Loomba was asked to continue supervisory functions and submit a further report by 30 March 1993. The Court noted that burnt or lost records were being re-constituted and declined to address broader issues relating to projects on forest or revenue land, directing aggrieved parties to approach the State Government instead.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The Supreme Court issued operative directions that:
- Confine survey and settlement operations exclusively to Section 4 forest villages (265 villages);
- Require Additional District Judges to decide approximately 25,760 pending appeals by 31 March 1993;
- Mandate a special record review in 17 named villages where errors are evident;
- Dissolve the Court-appointed Board of Commissioners effective 31 March 1993, while retaining Justice Loomba’s supervisory role;
- Schedule the matter for final disposal on 31 March 1993.
Implications: The order streamlines the resolution process, clarifies administrative responsibility between forest and revenue authorities, and accelerates adjudication of outstanding appeals. It affects only the parties and administrative bodies involved; the Court consciously refrained from setting broader legal precedent.
Order
1. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1061 of 1982 was disposed of by this Court by order dated November 20, 1986. This Court gave comprehensive directions and provided mechanism for the implementation of the same. This Court has been monitoring the project during all these years. In the order dated November 20, 1986 this Court took notice of the Mahenswar Prasad Committee Report which had identified 433 villages lying south of the Kaimur range of the Mirzapur district to be relevant for the purposes of the present dispute. Two hundred and ninty-nine villages were in Dudhi tehsil and the remaining 134 in Robertsganj tehsil. This Court further noticed that a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1922 (the Act) had been issued in respect of 58,937.42 acres of land and the same was declared reserved forest. This Court further noticed that in respect of 7,89,086 acres of land, notification under Section 4 of the Act had been made. This Court finally issued directions only in regard to the lands notified under Section 4 of the Act. It was specifically made clear that the land already declared as reserved forest was not the subject matter of the writ petition. It is further clear from the order that the directions and subsequent monitoring was to relate only to the lands which have been notified under Section 4 of the Act. Although the order noted the fact that Mahenswar Prasad Committee identified 433 villages in that area but the directions of this Court are only confined to those villages which have been notified under Section 4 of the Act. With this background we issue the following directions:
(1) The Survey and Record Operations have to be confined only to the ‘forest villages’ in respect of which notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued. According to the Seventh Report dated December 30, 1992 of Justice B.L Loomba there are 265 villages in respect of which notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued. We make it clear that the Survey and Settlement which this Court has undertaken, only relates to the ‘forest villages’. The Survey and Settlement in the revenue villages is the responsibility of the State Government under the U.P Land Revenue Act.
(2) We, therefore, direct the Commissioners and further request Justice B.L Loomba to concentrate only in respect of the lands which are covered by the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
(3) Justice Loomba's Report further indicates that the work before the Forest Settlement Officers has more or less been completed. On December 1, 1992 there were 329 pending cases which by now must have been finalised. So far as the appellate work is concerned as on December 1, 1992 25,760 appeals were pending before the Additional District Judges. We direct the Additional District Judges to finalise the hearing of these appeals by March 31, 1993 if possible. We request the Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court to kindly look into this matter and issue specific directions to the concerned Additional District Judges for completing the work by March 31, 1993.
(4) The reports of the Commissioners (January 1, 1993) and of Justice Loomba reveal that there have been some errors whereby rights of non-occupants have been recorded without on-the-spot inspection, hearings and to the prejudice of the actual occupants on the spot. The Commissioners and Justice Loomba have identified 17 forest villages in this respect which are as under:
1. Chattarpur 2. Goetha 3. Jaampani 4. Dhuma 5. Sukhra 6. Supachuan 7. Naudiha 8. Madhuvan 9. Karhiya (Dudhi) 10. Nagwa 11. Gulaljharia 12. Kudri 13. Ghaghri 14. Kirbil 15. Sagobaandh 16. Jarha 17. Bailhathhi
Agreeing with the Reports of the Commissioners, Justice Loomba and the contentions of Mr Rajeev Dhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner, we direct that special review be undertaken in the above 17 villages only in respect of those cases where there are complaints from the individuals and the errors are patent on the record. The Forest Department shall also be at liberty to ask for special review in the cases pertaining to the above villages where according to the Department records have not been correctly prepared.
(5) The special review directed by us shall be completed by March 31, 1993.
(6) We have been informed that the records which have been burnt or lost are being re-constituted.
(7) Since the basic work at the level of Forest Settlement Officers has almost been completed, we are of the view that it is no longer necessary to have the Board of Commissioners appointed by this Court. We direct that the Board of Commissioners consisting of Mr Prem Bhai and Mr Prem Singh shall stand dissolved with effect from March 31, 1993. We, however, request Justice Loomba to continue his supervision till further consideration. The Special Officers and other staff appointed by the State Government shall continue to function till further orders. The services rendered by the Commissioners shall be taken on record in the final order.
(8) So far as the projects in forest and revenue lands are concerned, we are not inclined to take up the issues, if any, for consideration. The State Government or any other authority under law may be approached in this respect for rehabilitation and other reliefs.
(9) We request Justice Loomba to send further report before March 30, 1993.
2. To be listed on March 31, 1993 for final disposal.
Alert