AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are Forest Range Officer and Divisional Forest Officer respectively, not to evict the petitioner from his agricultural land except in accordance with law. There are other prayers as well.
Even after repeated query from the petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to disclose any averments made in the writ petition, nor the case of the petitioner is that he has any agricultural land, on which he can claim any rights on the basis of occupancy or on the basis of title.
From the records, it appears that the land on which the petitioner alleges his possession is a forest land, in which proceedings for eviction have been initiated by the Forest Department in the past. The prayer, as is being made by the petitioner, can only be granted if the petitioner establishes his case before this Court, even on prima facie basis as to his rights on the
alleged property, i.e. the land. This petitioner has miserably failed to do so.
On the other hand, prima facie, the land appears to be a forest land and even if the petitioner alleges occupation, no rights can accrue to the petitioner as there is nothing like an adverse possession on the State land.
The petitioner, therefore, has no case. The relief as is being sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court.
The writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed in limine.