Mrinal Saikia v. State Of Assam & Ors.

15.07.2015. (K. Sreedhar Rao, CJ(Acting) Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the 3rd Addition, vide report, dated 05.08.2014, the number of families living by encroachment was 32. In the current report, 82 families are shown to be now pattadars. It is submitted that from the report it is seen that the Government is encouraging the encroachers by granting pattas. It is said that the Bandardubi village, 183 families are living as encroachers and in Deuchur Chang village 122 families are living as encroachers, thus, total 305 families are living as encroachers. The said families have been given the building materials under Indira Awas yojana, a Government Scheme, for building houses. It is also said that LP Schools, Madrassas, Iddgah and Masjids are constructed in the villages. It is argued that the Government is encouraging the encroachments and facilitating their permanent settlement. The above material discloses that there appears to be some improprieties and illegalities in granting pattas and legalizing the encroachments. It is, therefore, directed that the Revenue Authority, particularly, the Deputy Commissioners of Nagaon, Sonitpur and Golaghat to furnish the copies of all the pattas granted to the persons in 3rd Addition. In so far as the Bandardubi and Deuchur Chang villages are concerned, the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon shall evict the encroachment of Government land from the said two villages on or before 12-08-2015, if necessary with effective police assistance. The Superintendent of Police(Border), Nagaon shall also make verification of the Nationality of the encroachers in the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Additions. The compliance report to be submitted by 12-08-2015. The biometric of all the residences in 2nd, 3rd and 5th Additions is to be taken and report to be submitted by 12-08-2015. Hand delivery of the order to be given to the Assistant Solicitor General of India, Government Advocate, Assam, the Standing Counsel, Forest Department and the Director, Kaziranga National Park. Call the matter on 12-08-2015. 15 11) This Court has directed the Deputy Commissioners to evict the residents from the park area including the 2nd, 3rd 5th, 6th additions and also the residents of Bandardubi, Deuchur Chang and Palkhowa. 12) The petitioners in WP(C) 648/2013 contend that the petitioners are grazing cattle in the lands in the sixth addition and without settlement of compensation they should not be evicted. 13) IA 1261/2015 and 1262/2015 are filed by the applicants to be impleaded in PIL 66/2012. It is the contention of the applicants that they are patta-holders and lawful residents in Bandardubi and Deuchur Chang villages. The said villages are revenue village, which do not form part of the KNP, therefore, they cannot be evicted. WP(C) 4860/2013 14) Shri S. Upadhay, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 4860/2013, urged the following contentions to resist the eviction process against the petitioners. 16

(i) There has been no valid acquisition of the said villages as contemplated under Section 26A and 35 of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972, besides there is no compliance of the requirements of the Forest Rights Act of 2006. The authorities are evicting the petitioners who are the lawful residents and patta-holders of the lands.

(ii) The provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 26A of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972, earlier to the amendment dated 1st April, 2003, insisted that there should be a resolution passed by the legislature to authorise for addition or alteration of the boundaries of a National Park as a condition precedent. In this case, the unamended provisions prior to 1st April, 2003 will apply. Since there is no resolution passed by the Legislature, the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal.

(iii) Section 35(5) of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972 declares that no alteration of the boundaries of at National Park by the State Government shall be made except on a recommendation of the National Board. In this case, there is no recommendation of the National Board is obtained. Hence, the acquisition proceedings are illegal. 17

(iv) There has been no final notification issued as required under sub-Section (1) of Section 35 of the Wild Life(Protection) Act, 1972 in respect of the second, third and fifth Additions of the KNP.

(v) The definition of forest land under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 includes the Sanctuaries and National Parks. Section 6 of the Act protects the rights of the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. The Act contemplates constitution of gram sabhas and forest rights committees. The said gram sabhas and forest rights committees have to scrutinise and record the rights of forest dwellers and Scheduled Tribes living in the forest. In the present case, no such gram sabhas or forest committees are constituted. The petitioners are all residents of the forest area since the 1950s and pattas have been granted in their favour in the year 1962. The summary eviction of the petitioners cannot be done without inquiry and without ascertaining their rights over the land in question.

(vi) The affidavit of the Director filed before the Supreme Court in WP(C) no. 337/1995 dated 23rd January, 2006, it is mentioned that for the proposed third addition of Kaziranga National Park, the preliminary notification under section 18 has been issued. The provisions of Section 18

18 pertains the acquisition of land for the purpose of sanctuary and not for the National Park. Therefore, without there being proper notification for acquisition of land for National Park, the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal

(vii) The minutes of the meeting held on 18.1.2013 pursuant to the order of this Court dated 8th January, 2012 wherein there is a mention that the ADC(Revenue), Golaghat has stated that since no money has been acceptable/handed-over by/to anyone, the land acquisition process in respect of the patta lands under the 2nd, 3rd and 5th addition area is not deemed as completed as per the Land Acquisition Act.

(viii) The sub-Section (4) of Section 35 of the Act contemplates that before eviction all claims of the petitioners have to be disposed of by the state government and thereafter the final notification has to be published regarding the vesting of the land. Since no such procedures have taken place, without a valid acquisition the petitioners cannot be evicted. 15) The petitioners 4 and 5 claim that their ancestors and they are residing in Siljuri village since the time of independence and they have 19 been granted the myadi patta. Petitioner 7 and 8 also claim that they are residing since the 1950s on the land covered under the fifth addition by paying touzi to the government. In the light of the statements made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat the process of acquisition as required under Section 35(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 having not been complete any premature eviction would be illegal. 16) The learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Krishen v. Union of India and others(AIR 1996 SC 2040). In paras 5 and 17 of the judgment the following observations are made.

5. The deponent further states that there are 11 National Parks and

33 Sanctuaries in the State of Madhya Pradesh, out of which 3 National Parks are finally notified under the National Park Act, 1955 and one Sanctuary is notified under the Act as amended in 1991, but the final notification is yet to be issued. The remaining 8 National Parks and 32 Sanctuaries were notified from time to time under the Act prior to its amendment in 1991. In these National Parks and Sanctuaries, proceedings under Sections 19 to 25 of the Act were not taken to acquire the rights of the people. That is why they were not finally notified. The State Government could not have taken away the rights of the tribals and villagers dependent on minor forest produce without acquisition of those rights after payment of compensation. It is for this reason that the final notification under Section 26A could not be issued unless provision for payment of compensation and rehabilitation were simultaneously made. So also, in regard to National Parks, the final declaration could not be issued under Section 35 of the Act for the same reason.

17. On a plain reading of these provisions, it is, therefore, obvious that the procedure in regard to acquisition of rights in and over the land to be included in a Sanctuary of National Park has to be followed before a final notification under section 26a or section 35(1) is issued by the State Government. In the instant case, it is not the contention of the petitioner that the procedure for the acquisition of rights in or over the land of those 20 living in the vicinity of the areas proposed to be declared as Sanctuaries and National Parks under Section 26A and 35 of the Act has been undertaken. It was for this reason that the order of 28.3.1995 in terms stated that since no final notification was issued under the said provisions, the State Government was not in a position to bar the entry or villagers living in and around the Sanctuaries and the National Parks so long as their rights were not acquired and final notifications under the aforesaid provisions were issued. It is, therefore, not possible to conclude that the State Government had violated any provision of law in issuing the notification dated 28.3.1995. 17) The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Jaladhar Chakma and etc. etc. v. The Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, Mizoram and others(AIR 1983 Gau 18). WP(C) 648/2013 18) The learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 648/2013 has submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner disclose that they have been permitted to graze and they have paid the revenue to the government. Petitioners are exercising rights for the past 50 to 60 years. Therefore without payment of compensation they cannot be summarily evicted. 21 IA 1261/2015 and 1262/2015. 19) The counsel for the intervening applicants in IA 1261/2015 and 1262/2015 has submitted that Bandurdubi and Deurchur Chan villages are the two villages that have been declared as revenue village by the government therefore it does not fall within the area of the National Park hence the eviction of any villager from the revenue villages is illegal. In this regard the learned Advocate-General has supported the contention of the applicants that as per the revenue records the said two villages are revenue village and not part of the National Park. In respect of other areas it is submitted that the State will take necessary action to evict persons in accordance with law. 20) The counsel for the forest department has submitted satellite image of Kaziranga National Park taken on 2.5.2010(latitude 26.617007 degree and longitude 93.496956 degree) from the Google Earth which shows that there is no habitation in the third Addition. The image taken on 12.29.2011(latitude 26.586765 degree and longitude 93.316559 degree) shows that there is no habitation in the 5th Addition. The image taken on 1.17.2014(latitude 26.586765 degree and longitude 93.316559 degree) shows that there is habitation in the fifth Addition while image taken on 22 1.18.2014(latitude 26.617007 degree and longitude 93.496956 degree) shows that there is habitation in the third Addition. 21) With regard to Deurchur Chan village it is submitted that a notification was issued by the Government in the year 1916 declaring that the entire area of Deurchur Chan as reserve forest. 22) With regard to Banderdubi village it is submitted that the report of the Director discloses that the Government had given the land for social forestry for raising plantation in the year 1986. There has been no development of social forestry. In the beginning, there were only 5/6 families living as encroachers and as of now, it is said that the whole village has come up. The Banderdubi area is part of social forest land and also a tiger resort and animal corridor. 23) Per contra the learned Advocate-General has submitted that since no social forest was developed, the forest department gave the land to the government and accordingly, it has become the revenue village. 24) Learned senior counsel Shri KN Choudhury relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of 23 India and others[(1997) 2 SCC 267]. In para 4 of the judgment the following observations are made.

4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word forest must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term forest land, occurring in Section 2, will not only include forest as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this latte stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay. 25) The counsel also referred to the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980, which reads as follows. 24

2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, may order directing

(i) that any reserved forest(within the meaning of the expression reserved forest in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by government;

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. Explanation- For the purposes of this section non-forest purpose means the breaking up or clearing or any forest land or potion thereof for- (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild-life, namely, the establishment of check- posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes. 26) In the light of the decision of the Godavarman(supra) case it is argued that the definition of forest land elucidated by the Supreme Court not only includes forest but also any area recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of the ownership, and this has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and that the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification. In that view it is argued that the Banderdubi village which 25 is declared to be social forestry cannot be de-reserved and converted to revenue village. In that view of the matter the question of permitting any habitation in the said areas does not arise. 27) The government has produced the final notification issued in respect of the second Addition, which is dated 12th July, 2010 and the final notification issued in respect of the fourth Addition dated 10th April, 2012 and respect of third, fifth and sixth Additions final notification is yet to be issued. 28) The report of the Collector for the second addition of the KNP is as follows. Report of the Collector for 2nd Addition to the Kaziranga National Park. In response to our proclamation 147 claims were received. During the course of hearing of these claims some more people had approached stating that they could not file the claim in time. They were allowed to file the same even at a subsequent date much beyond the time fixed by the proclamation. Eleven claims were received thereafter making a total of 158 claimants. All these claim forms were registered as individual cases of each claimant and notices were issued to each of them individually to appear before the undersigned with the required evidence in support of their claim. For the convenience of the claimants the hearing was fixed at the Range Office, Kaziranga Range at Kohora. Four claimants who did not appear on the first occasion were given another notice to give them a second opportunity of presenting their cases. Whatever evidence was furnished by each claimant was recorded in the order sheet of each individual case, where after based on these claims and the evidence furnished, findings on all these claims has been recorded in each individual case and all claims have been disposed of. The initial claim of a group of claimants was that they are erosion- affected people and land had been allotted to them by way of 26 rehabilitation. They could not, however, show any paper issued by any Government functionary making such an allotment of land as claimed by them. The matter was further checked from the Circle Officer, Bokakhat Circle who stated that no such allotment was ever made in the given area. Even the pattern of occupation of land does not support the claim that this land was ever allotted to the claimants by way of resettlement. Normally, resettlement is done in symmetrical plots either of 2 bighas or 5 bighas for each individual family, which are demarcated in a bigger piece of land. The land held by each family is thus equal and side by side. In the present situation the area of land occupied varies from person to person and is scattered all over the place. This clearly indicates that the claim that the land was allotted by way of resettlement is not correct. Out of the 158 cases, the claimants in 116 cases, as listed out in Annexure-1, produced receipts of payment of Touzi Bahira. Some of these receipts were tampered while in all cases only the amount and the name of the person making the payment was recorded in the receipt. Normally, even in Touzi Bahira the Mouzadar allots a Touzi number to each occupant of the land and records the name of the encroachers. The receipts for payment of Touzi Bahira normally indicate the Touzi number and the person on whose behalf the money has been paid by the person paying the same. This issue is however only of academic interest. Touzi Bahira is a fine laid down under the Revenue Laws for encroachment and is not an evidence of title over the occupied land. In view of this all 116 claims, wherein the claimants had produced receipts of payment of Touzi Bahira, have been rejected. Twenty-seven claimants as listed in Annexure-II have no paper in support of their claim over the land that they are occupying. They do not have even a Touzi Bahira receipt. Evidently they have no title over the land they are occupying and the claims were hence rejected. Nine claimants as listed in Annexure-III are of claims wherein land has been used for non-Agricultural purposes. One of them is for a temple, two are self-styled public fisheries, one is a primary school, one is an anganwadi Kendra, two are self-help groups and two are public organizations. None of them had any document to show that they have any title over the land that has been occupied by them. The claims were hence rejected. Six cases as listed in Annexure-IV were either duplicate, fictitious or the claimant did not appear. Two cases are of claimants who did not appear despite two notices having been issued to them. Three cases were found to be where claims were filed twice and separate cases had been registered. One case was found to be fictitious. Notices were issued twice in this but on neither occasion the person was found. The Gaon Burah has reported that there is no such person. 27 In conclusion, the claims in all 158 cases have been rejected, as no claimant had anything to establish title over the land. Apart from the exercise taken up in response to the claims received, the status of land was checked from the land revenue record of the area. The land involved in the 2nd Addition is spread over four Revenue Villages of Bokakhat Circle. These are

1. Sildubi I

2. Sildubi II

3. Kaziranga Nanke Gaon.

4. Hatikhuli Bagicha Gaon. 5. In village Sildubi No. I there was 158B-3K-18L of land covered by annual pattas. This land was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 89-90 of Golaghat. Since this land has been acquired by the above mentioned Land Acquisition proceedings, the said land has become sarkari and all rights and title of the pattadars has been extinguished. However, 31B-2K-0L of land out of this has not been handed over as the pattadars have refused to leave their land. This is an unauthorized occupation and no right or title on the land has remained after the acquisition. An area of 109B-0K-0L, being part of the acquired land was handed over to the D.F.O Eastern Assam Wild Life Division, Bokakhat on 21-06-2004. In the same village 31B-3K-16L of land was covered by periodic pattas. This land has also been acquired by the above mentioned Land Acquisition case of Golaghat. Though the land has not been handed over as the pattadars have refused to leave it, the land in question has become Sarkari as the same has been acquired by a Land Acquisition Proceedings and nobody has any title over the same. 1383B-0K-10L of land in village Sildubi No. I is VGR and PGR land. The entire land is already in the possession of the D.F.O, Eastern Assam Wild Life Division, Bokakhat. 126B-2K-8L is Government land of which 113B-4K-8L has been handed over to the D.F.O, Eastern Assam Wild Life Division, Bokakhat on 05-07-2005 while 12B-3K-0L is under encroachment. The second village involved is Sildubi No. 2. This has 1395B-2K- 17L of land, which entirely is Government land as per Revenue records and is under encroachment. All claims that have been received are from this village alone. As already stated these claims have been examined and rejected as it has been found that the claimants have no right or title over the land and they are only encroachers. The third village involved is Kaziranga Nanke Gaon. This has 1388B-3K-18L. The entire land is Government land out of which 58B-3K-18L is under encroachment. The remaining 1330B-0K-0L 28 was handed over to the DFO, Eastern Assam Wild Life Division, on 05-07-2005 and is with the Forest Department. The fourth village involved is Hatikhuli Bagicha Gaon. In this village 92B-2K-9L was periodic patta land which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vide Land Acquisition Case No. 5/89-90 of Golaghat. This land has been acquired and possession handed over to the D.F.O., Eastern Assam Wild Life Division, Bokakhat on 26-07-2004. Revenue records in the Chita had been corrected on 26-07-2004. Apart from this there is Government land measuring 378B-3K-13L possession of which has been handed over to the D.F.O., Eastern Assam Wild Life Division, Bokakhat on 05-07-2005 and Revenue records have been corrected accordingly. It is thus clear from examination of Revenue records as well as after consideration and disposal of all claims received in respect of the 2nd Addition to the Kaziranga National Park that nobody has any legal right or title over any land that has been notified under Section 35(1) for the 2nd Addition to the Kaziranga National Park. The entire area involved is 4,955B-3K-9L of which 3,407B-1K-0L is already in the possession of the Kaziranga National Park. 1,548B- 2K-9L is remaining, which has some encroachers. Once the notification constituting the National Park is issued, steps would need to be taken to remove these encroachments. It is recommended that the final notification under Section 35(4) be issued by the Government constituting the 2nd Addition to the Kaziranga National Park under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (Central Act NO. 53 of 1972). The case records of all 158 claim cases and the file concerning the correspondences in connection with the 2nd Addition to the Kaziranga National Park are being transferred to the Director, Kaziranga National Park, Bokakhat for safe custody. (H.M. Cairae) Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department & Collector for 2nd Addition to the Kaziranga National Park. Dispur. 29 OPINION WP(C) 4680/2013 29) The petitioners 1, 2 and 3 claim to be residents of Sildubi I and II villages. They contend that they are patta holders and their claim has not been settled. The said contention appears to be palpably untenable. The report of the Collector extracted supra disclose that enquiry was held in respect of second addition. There were 158 claims. All the claims have been decided. It was found in the inquiry that nobody had any right or title over the land. The lands were taken over vide land acquisition case 4 of 89-90. The possession was delivered to the forest wildlife division. On 26.1.2004 and 5.1.2005. The report further discloses that some of the residents despite the adjudication of their claims refused to leave. The expert committee report also corroborates this fact that in the areas in the second addition there were temporary structures and recently constructed one. This material clearly indicates that the petitioners 1 to 3 have no right over the land in any manner. 30) The petitioners 4 and 5 are said to be the residents of to the third and fifth additions. The contention of the forest department that the claims are adjudicated by the inquiry authority. The averments made in 30 para 11 of the writ petition corroborate the contention that the claims are adjudicated since the para 11 states that the compensation amount of Rs 13,27,046/- is deposited with the Sub-divisional Officer. The said averments suggest that the petitioners have knowledge of the inquiry. 31) The petitioner 6 to 8 are said to be residents of Haldibari village, which is a part of the fifth addition. The authorities have fully complied with the requirements of law and claims have been settled. Only formal issuance of final notification for third and fifth editions remains. The petitioners cannot claim any right over the land that has been acquired and compensation is determined and deposited. Petitioners have suppressed the material fact. They have not stated anything about their participation in the inquiry and the rights they have over the land in question. 32) The contention that for acquisition before amendment of Section 26A in the year 2003 a resolution by the legislature was mandatory for issuance of preliminary notification. Hence the entire proceeding is bad in law. The proceedings for acquisition, be it under the Wild Life Act or the Land Acquisition Act, are one and the same. The petitioners of the second addition after conclusion of the proceedings and handing over 31 possession belatedly after nine years cannot challenge that their claims are not adjudicated and there is no valid notification for acquisition. 33) With regard to the contention that formalities under the Forest Act is not completed does not hold water because the petition averments do not anywhere assert or disclose that the petitioners are Scheduled Tribes or other traditional dwellers of the forest. In the absence of such pleadings the claim of rights under the Forest Rights Act does not arise. 34) The decisions cited by the counsel for the petitioners have no application to the facts situation of the instant case. In the cited case the petitioners have asserted their rights to collect tendu leaves. In this case the fact situation is totally different. The acquisition and eviction of human habitation is being done for protecting the wildlife which is exposed to rampant poaching. The authorities have complied with all the formalities. Maybe, there may be some technical lapses but nonetheless the procedures of inquiry conducted by the Collector is in full consonance with procedures laid down under the Land Acquisition Act. Merely because there are some technical lapses in issuing preliminary notification should not be a cause to undoing the result of the acquisition proceedings. If technical views are taken there would be substantial damage to the wildlife and national interests. 32 WP 648/2013 35) With regard to the contention of the petitioners it is submitted that the petitioners have only grazing rights and they are said to be residents of the sixth addition. The rights granted to them are only in the nature of licence and for a larger public interest petitioners are prevented from grazing. They cannot have any legal right. Petitioners can approach the competent authority to establish their rights for seeking compensation. In the inquiry to be conducted before issuance of the final notification the petitioners can participate and seek compensation. Hence the relief sought in the petition that they should not be prevented until compensation is paid is untenable. IA 1261/2015 and 1262/2015 36) The applicants are seeking to get impleaded to challenge the eviction proceedings. It is the case of the applicants that they are residents of Deocharchang and Bandardubi which are revenue villages within the territory of KNP. The claim of the petitioners is also supported by the government. However we are unable to agree with the submissions 33 since Deocharchang is declared by notification in 1916 that it is a reserve forest. The government gave the lands in Bandardubi for social forestry in the year 1986. There was no development of social forestry. The illegal encroachment started and a village has come up by encroachment. It is the stand of the government that since social forestry is not developed the lands of Bandardubi was given back to the government and the lands are dereserved and shown as revenue village. 37) The Supreme Court in Godavarman case supra has laid down a ratio that the forest land occurring in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 not only includes "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has been understood for the purpose of Section 2. The provisions of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, mandates that no State Government or other authority shall make, except with prior approval of the Central Government, de-reserve any forest area. When once the Government has given the land for social forestry it is impermissible for the Government to dereserve and make it a revenue village without consent of the Central Government besides the said area is tiger reserve and animal corridor. 34 38) The report submitted by Director, Kaziranga National Park on the orders of this Court also states, at page 167, that Bandardubi village is animal corridor. In that view, the claim of the persons, who want to get impleaded that they should not be evicted from Bandardubi and Deocharchang is untenable. In so far as these two villages are concerned, one is declared to be reserved forest and other is declared to be the social forestry and animal corridors. The human habitants of those areas cannot claim right of occupation or possession. 39) The individual claims for a handful of persons is in conflict with the public and national interest. There have been persistent and repeated reports of poaching of rhinoceros, elephants and other wild animals. It is irresistible inference that the habitants in KKP area would fall in suspect group and they would be well-acquainted with the areas and animal movements, therefore they would alone be in a position to do poaching successfully or abet poaching by others. The concept of national park in the Wild Life Act contemplates that there should be no human habitation. 40) Article 48-A of the Directive Principles of the Constitution of India mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. 35 Article 51-A(g) fastens the fundamental duties on the citizens to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures. 41) In the face of the Constitutional obligations on the part of the State with a corresponding duty on the part of the citizens it would be highly untenable on the part of the petitioners to take technical pleas and expose the wild life to a great danger of extinction. 42) The Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Redeppa and another[(1993) 4 SCC 269] has laid down the following ratio. True the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 or the tribunal is not as wide as it is in appeal or revision but once the Court is satisfied of injustice or arbitrariness then the restriction, self imposed or statutory, stands removed and no rule or technicality on exercise of power, can stand in way of rendering justice. 43) In the instant case any rigid and technical view would only harm and endanger the wildlife of the KNP. The jurisdiction of this Court under

226 of the Constitution is quite wide. The petitioners who have approached this Court have no right over the land and their claims have been adjudicated. The fact that the final notification in respect of the 3rd and fifth additions is not issued is not a ground for the petitioners to 36 overstay on the land when their claims are adjudicated. There is also provision under the Land Acquisition Act that in urgent situations the possession of land is taken and later on adjudication of compensation procedures are followed. In that view of the matter even if the final notification is not issued since the claims of the persons of third and fifth additions are adjudicated they cannot claim right to stay in the land. If the Court, as argued by the petitioners, takes a technical view it would only endanger the wildlife in the KNP and there would be unabetted acts of poaching. Hence keeping in view the interests of the KNP, which is a World Heritage Site, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners. 44) It may be that the recommendation of the National Board is to be taken, still it is open to the government to approach the National Board for its approval. We dont think that the National Board can take any different view than the one taken by the government for expanding the area of the KNP. Keeping in view the larger interests of the public and the Constitution mandates, the claim of the petitioners in WP(C) 4860/2013 is held to be untenable and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Similarly the claim of the applicants in IA 1261/2015 and 1262/2015 for the reasons stated above are dismissed. The claim of the petitioners in WP(C) 648/2013 is rejected. The Deputy Commissioners of Golaghat, 37 Sonitpur and Nagaon are directed to take expeditious steps to evict the inhabitants in the second, third, fifth and as well the six additions of the Kaziranga National Park, including Deurchur Chang, Banderdubi and Palkhowa, within one month. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTING) na/