IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 654 to 659 of 1997
AND
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICAIONS NO.874,875,928,934 TO
937 & 1255 of 1977
--------------------------------------------------------------
VASURBHAI UGABHAI KHUMAN
Versus
AI SHEIKH
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR SV PARMAR for Petitioner
MR HM BHAGAT for Respondent No. 1, 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : THE ACTING CJ R.A.MEHTA and
MR.JUSTICE N.N.MATHUR
Date of Order: 09/07/97
COMMON ORAL ORDER
The petitioners belong to Scheduled Castes and
some of them belong to Socially and Economically Backward
Classes. They are aggrieved by the Government’s action
of giving them notice of eviction from the land under
their cultivation. It is their case that these lands
were ordered to be allotted to them some 20 years back
and they have been cultivating the lands since so many
years.
2.However, because of the judgment and directions
of the Supreme Court in the case of T N GODAVARMAN
TIRUMULKPAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., reported in 1997
(2) SCC 267 they had to be evicted and it is the
contention of the State that their cultivation is
non-forest activity in forest area and therefore they had
to be evicted as it is violative of section 2 of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
3.Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
provides for restrictions on the dereservation of Forest
Land for non-forest purpose and that it stipulates that
no State Government or other authority shall make any
order directing that any forest land or any portion
thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose except
with the prior approval of the Central Government. It is
submitted by the petitioners that under Articles 15 (4),
21 and 46 of the Constitution, these classes of poor
people are entitled to special treatment and
consideration and they have a fundamental right to their
livelihood and special treatment and the State Government
having regard to its circulars and Resolutions and
declared policies, have passed orders of allotment of
these lands to the petitioners and it is neither in
public interest nor in accordance with the law to evict
them on the ground that the Supreme Court has directed
generally that all non-forest activities within the area
of ‘forest’ should be stopped.
4.It is for the parties to approach the Supreme
Court and obtain appropriate clarifications or
interpretation of the Supreme court order rather than
agitating this question in this Court or in different
courts.
5.In fact, it would have been more appropriate and
still it is open to the State Authorities to obtain
appropriate clarification or to the petitioners also to
approach the Supreme Court for appropriate clarification.
It is submitted that for these poor petitioners, it would
be difficult to approach the Supreme Court. It may be
difficult for them to approach the Supreme Court, but we
have no doubt that if they approach the Supreme Court
Legal Aid Committee or other such Agencies, appropriate
legal aid will be forthcoming.
6.In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do
not find any good ground to entertain these petitions at
this stage, and therefore, we dismiss these petitions.
However, we continue the interim relief for a period till
31.1.1998 to enable the petitioners to approach the
Supreme Court, Central Government, State Government or
any other authorities and make their representations and
obtain appropriate orders. Direct Service.
Date: 9.7.1997 ( R A MEHTA, Actg. CJ)
(N N MATHUR, J.)
msp.