Forest Act| Evidence Which Has Been Confirmed By Lower Courts Must Only Be Reversed By High Courts In Rarest Of Rare Cases: SC
The Supreme Court while dealing with a dispute relating to the possession of land has observed that the evidence which has been confirmed by lower courts must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held, “… the introduction and admission of evidence at the trial stage goes through a rigorous process, wherein each piece of evidence introduced is subject to very strict scrutiny, and every party is given the opportunity to test the veracity of the said evidence through procedure established by law. The legitimacy of the evidence, at every stage, is questioned, and the opposing party is given the right to question the said evidence by placing their doubts regarding the same in court. Such a mechanism in law of going through evidence, is not available to the High Court while exercising its powers under writ jurisdiction, and therefore, evidence which has been confirmed by the lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases.”
The Bench said that the reappreciation of evidence done by the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Article 226 is bad in law and hence liable to be struck down.
Advocate Anil Kaushik appeared for the appellants while Senior Advocate S.R. Singh and Advocate Kamlendra Mishra appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The appellants were the bhoomidars and were in possession of the lands which were used by them for agricultural purposes since a permanent lease was executed in their favour by the then zamindar in the year 1952. A part of the subject land including the land in possession of the appellants was declared as reserved forest and the other part was subject to a notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act.
Such a declaration of the said land initiated an eviction drive of the local inhabitants, and against the same, a writ petition was instituted in the Apex Court regarding the claim of the local inhabitants. The court directed the formation of a High Court Powered Committee for adjudicating upon persons' claims, and hence, the appellants filed their claims before the Forest Settlement Officer which accepted the same. Being aggrieved by this, the respondents approached Additional District Judge and then the High Court which finally allowed their plea. Therefore, the appellants approached the Apex Court against the same.
The following issues arose before the Supreme Court for its consideration-
I. Whether the relief granted in the Judgment of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs State Of Uttar Pradesh1 is only applicable to SC/ST/ other backward communities?
II. 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?
While dealing with the first issue, the Court noted, “… the right to enjoy possession of any land notified under Section 4 of the Forest Act is not only limited to Adivasi communities and other forest dwelling communities, but is also based on proof of residence, date of original possession, etc. If the right to inhabit the said lands is not restricted only to certain communities, how can the right to be heard on such claims be restricted to the same.”
The Court in the above context held the first issue in favour of the appellants. While considering the second issue, the Court said that the concurrent findings of the lower courts are neither perverse nor the said courts have overstepped their jurisdiction and that in such a scenario, wherein neither of the conditions were satisfied, the High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence in writ jurisdiction and come to a different conclusion.
“… we hold Issue No. II in favour of the Appellants herein”, said the Court.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and confirmed the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer and ADJ.
Cause Title- Hari Prakash Shukla & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
