Hari Prakash Shukla & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Background
The appellants had cultivated certain land under a permanent lease from a former zamindar since 1952, but part of this land was later declared reserved forest, triggering eviction proceedings. Following the Supreme Court's 1986 judgment in Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., which set up a mechanism for forest-land claims to be heard by a Forest Settlement Officer, the appellants' claim was examined and upheld by the Forest Settlement Officer and then by an Additional District Judge. Years later, the Forest Department successfully challenged these concurrent findings before the Allahabad High Court in writ jurisdiction, which set them aside and ordered the appellants' eviction.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the Banwasi Seva Ashram judgment grants a procedural right to be heard before the appropriate forest authority to all persons in possession of such land, not merely persons from recognised Scheduled Tribe or backward communities, since forest-dwelling communities include many groups without formal recognition. On the separate question of the High Court's power, the Court held that a High Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot re-appreciate evidence and overturn concurrent findings of fact reached by competent authorities after due process, unless those findings are shown to be patently perverse or made in excess of jurisdiction, neither of which applied here. The High Court's judgment was set aside, the earlier orders of the Forest Settlement Officer and the Additional District Judge (both in the appellants' favour) were restored, and the connected contempt petitions were rendered infructuous as a result.
Lesson Learnt
A beneficial procedural right established by a Supreme Court judgment applies to everyone it covers by its terms, not just to specific recognised communities; and High Courts cannot use writ jurisdiction to re-weigh evidence and reverse concurrent factual findings of lower courts/tribunals absent perversity or a jurisdictional excess.