Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Its … vs Ram Jatan (Dead) Thr. Lrs on 30 July, 2025
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14058 OF 2024
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CONSERVATOR OF FOREST …APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAM JATAN (DEAD)
THROUGH LRs. & ANOTHER ETC. …
RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14059 OF 2024
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
1. State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred these appeals being
aggrieved by the orders passed in Writ Petition (C) Nos.37731 of
1993 and 37732 of 1993 both dated 17.10.2011. By the said
orders the High Court has refused to interfere in the Writ
Signature Not Verified
Petitions filed by the appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence,
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2025.08.20
17:37:17 IST
Reason:
these appeals.
Page 1 of 6
2. We have heard Mr. Abhishek Saket, learned Special Counsel
for the State of Uttar Pradesh in both the appeals. The
respondents are served but they have not entered appearance.
3. Learned Special Counsel for the appellant State drew our
attention to the impugned order and contended that the tenor of
the orders clearly discloses that the High Court has refused to
exercise its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. He contended that the appellant-
State was constrained to file the said Writ Petitions, being
aggrieved by the orders passed in the statutory appeals in favour
of the respondents herein inasmuch as the subject lands had
been notified as Reserved Forest under the provisions of the
Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act” for
the sake of brevity) and subsequent to the dismissal of the claims
made by the respondents herein, a declaration had been issued
under Section 17 of the said Act. However, the same was assailed
by the respondents before the appellate authority which had
allowed the appeals filed by the respondents herein. Being
aggrieved by the said orders, the State had preferred the Writ
Petitions before the High Court.
Page 2 of 6
4. Learned Special Counsel contended that the cryptic orders
passed by the High Court would indicate non-application of mind
to the issues raised by the appellant herein before the High Court.
The Writ Petitions concern valuable reserved forest lands which
were notified under the provisions of Section 4 and thereafter
under Section 17 of the Act and therefore being aggrieved by the
orders passed in the appeals, the State had filed the Writ Petitions
before the High Court; that the High Court ought to have
considered the Writ Petitions on merits rather than stating that
the statutory adjudicatory forum had decided the matter in one
way or the other in favour of one of the departments of the
Government and therefore the High Court does not find any
reason to interfere in the matter.
5. For immediate reference, the order passed in W.P.(C).
No.37731 OF 1993 dated 17.10.2011 is extracted as under:
“The Prescribed Authority under Section 17 of the Forest
Act has held that the land in question is to be included in
the forest area and the appeal there after has been
rejected by the appellate authority as well as review has
also been rejected.
Page 3 of 6
The dispute basically is between Forest Department
and Settlement Officer and if there is any dispute the
same can be examined by the High Level Committee. In
any case in the present case statutory adjudicatory forum
has decided the matter in one or the other way in favour
of one of the Department of the Government. I do not find
it a fit case warranting interference under extra ordinary
equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.”
6. It goes without saying that a similar order was passed by the
High Court in Writ Petition (C) No.37732 of 1993 on 17.10.2011.
7. A perusal of the aforesaid order speaks for itself inasmuch as
the said order is conspicuous by the absence of any reasoning for
dismissal of the Writ Petitions and failing to interfere in the
matters concerning valuable reserved forest land. In the
circumstances, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the
matter to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by restoring
the Writ Petition (C) Nos.37731 of 1993 and 37732 of 1993 dated
17.10.2011.
8. We request the High Court to consider the Writ Petitions
afresh as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.
9. Since the respondents have not appeared before this Court,
Page 4 of 6
we expect that the High Court would issue notice to the
respondents herein and thereafter hear and dispose of the
petitions as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law.
10. In view of the restoration of the Writ Petitions, the interim
orders passed in the Writ Petitions stand restored.
These appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
…………………………….J.
(B. V. NAGARATHNA)
……………………………J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI
JULY 30, 2025.
Page 5 of 6
ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.4 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).14058/2024
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
THROUGH ITS CONSERVATOR OF FOREST APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAM JATAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA NO. 84673/2021 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA NO. 252198/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
C.A. NO. 14059/2024 (III-A)
Date : 30-07-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Saket, Adv.
Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR
Ms. Manisha, Adv.
Ms. Rupali, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Rai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RAppeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of the
signed non-reportable judgment, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
Page 6 of 6