The Supreme Court held that the right to be heard is universal for all land possession claims, with substantial possession rights granted or denied during hearings in the case of Hari Prakash Shukla vs State of Up

Case title:

HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Date of Order:

5th July 2023

Bench:

..….………...………………,

 (KRISHNA MURARI)

……...…....….………….…………,

 (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

Parties:

HARI PRAKASH SHUKLA & ORS . … APPELLANT(S)

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)

SUBJECT

• Bhoomidars, who have owned land since 1952, filed a writ petition against local inhabitants. The court established a High Powered Committee to adjudicate claims over disputed land. The appellants filed a rightful claim, which was dismissed. The respondents appealed, and the respondent Forest Department filed a review and recall.
• The Supreme Court held that the right to be heard is universal for all land possession claims, with substantial possession rights granted or denied during hearings. This right is not restricted to specific communities or Adivasi communities.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Section 4 of forest Act- The State Government must declare land a reserved forest, specify its situation and limits, and appoint a Forest Settlement Officer to investigate rights in land or forest-produce.

OVERVIEW

• The appellants, bhoomidars, are in possession of the subject land, which was used for agricultural purposes since 1952.
•  Part of the land was declared as reserved forest, and the other was subject to notification under Section 4. This led to an eviction drive against local inhabitants, who filed a writ petition in this Court.
• The Court established a High Powered Committee to adjudicate claims over disputed land. The appellants filed their claims before the Forest Settlement Officer, who determined they had a rightful claim since the land was in possession before 1385 Fasli.
• The respondents appealed the order, which was dismissed. The appellants filed an application for enforcement, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge. 
• The respondent Forest Department filed a review, which was dismissed as an appeal. The Forest Department filed an application for recall, but both were dismissed.
• The respondent Forest Department filed a writ petition in Allahabad's High Court, which was allowed and directed to evict the appellants. The appellants filed a review petition, which was dismissed, but the eviction was stayed until 20.03.2013.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the relief granted in the Judgment of Banwasi Seva
• Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh is only applicable to SC/ST/
• other backward communities?
• Whether the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India, could have re-appreciated
• the evidence adduced to come to its findings?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• They are against the eviction drive from the reserved forest area
• The supreme court ruled that the right to be heard applies to all land-claiming individuals, and substantial possession rights can be granted or denied during hearings.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• They were aggrieved by the Forest officer’s holding that the said land has been in possession of the Appellants even prior to 1385 Fasli and thus, have a rightful claim over the said land.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• The Banwasi Sewa Ashram (Supra) case involved eviction of Adivasi communities from their homes due to land notification under the Forest Act. The Court held that inhabitants had a right to be heard by the Forest Officer, who could decide the merits of the case. The judgment provided only a procedural right to be heard by the appropriate authority, not a substantive right of possession or inhabitation.
• Forest communities include not only recognized Adivasi and backward communities but also other groups residing in the land.
•  These groups are essential to their functioning due to socio-political and economic reasons. The Banwasi Judgment (Supra) may cause harm to multiple other communities if interpreted narrowly, benefiting only recognized forest communities. The Judgment only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if interpreted narrowly, it could harm other communities.
• The right to be heard must be granted to all claiming possession of land, and the substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the hearing.
•  The right to enjoy possession is not limited to Adivasi communities or forest dwelling communities, but is based on proof of residence and original possession. The right to be heard on such claims cannot be restricted to specific communities.