1. Through Writ Petition No. 2727/15, following relief has been solicited by the petitioners:-- "It is therefore, very humbly prayed that by accepting the writ petition, an appropriate writ may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners in the manners solicited below:-
(i) That in case the Jungle owned by the petitioners is if indispensable for defense purpose respondents may kindly be directed to allot all trees marked above 22 "Dia and unmarked below 22" Dia present in the survey Nos. 1041, 1043, 1045, 1049, 1050, 1052, 1310 at village Nokot Leepa Valley from alternate Jungle at any place;
(ii) That respondents may kindly be directed to acquire Jungle total measuring 44 Kanals 14 Marlas at village Nokot Leepa Valley for defense purpose and allot petitioners' Jungle away from LOC of the same area and with kial trees of the 'same number and specification as mentioned in the marking lists and joint inspection reports;
(iii) That petitioners if entitled to any other relief in the eye of law and justice that also may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.
2. While through Writ Petition No. 1796/17, the Petitioners sought following relief:-- "In view of the above, it is most humbly prayed on behalf of the petitioners that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept the present writ petition set aside letter of Respondent No. 1 dated 27.10.2017 addressed to Respondents No. 6 and 8 and letter of Respondent No. 8 dated 28.10.2017 addressed to Respondents No. 3, 7 and 9 being without lawful authority. If the petitioners are entitled to any other relief or alternate relief that is also prayed for necessary cost."
3. In Writ Petition No. 1271/18, following relief is prayed by the petitioners: "In view of the above, it is most humbly prayed on behalf of the petitioners that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept the present writ petition set aside letter of Respondent No. 2 dated 21.06.2018 being issued without lawful authority. If the petitioners are entitled to any other relief or alternate relief that is also prayed for necessary costs."
4. As the above titled writ petitions raise common facts, regarding the same subject matter and between the same parties, therefore, were clubbed for onward proceedings and are disposed of through the instant consolidated judgment.
5. The succinct facts of Writ Petition No. 2727/15 are that the petitioners filed Writ Petitions No. 303/10 and 1638/11, wherein, this Court directed the respondents to finalize applications of the petitioners for sanction/removal of timber within four months. The respondents/Chief Conservator and DFO Demarcation division Muzaffarabad did not comply with the Court order and the petitioners filed contempt proceedings against the respondents. The respondents filed a review petition before this Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2012 and the Court order was implemented and the contempt proceedings were dropped. It is prayed that in case the Jungle owned by the petitioners is if indispensable for defence purpose, respondents may kindly be directed to allot all trees marked above 22 "Dia and unmarked below 22" Dia present in the survey Nos. 1041, 1043, 1045, 1049; 1050, 1052, 1310 at village Nakot Leepa Valley from alternate Jungle at any place. A further direction is sought to the respondents to acquire Jungle total measuring 44 Kanals and 14 Marlas at village Nokot Leepa Valley for defence purpose and allot petitioners' Jungle away from LOC of the same area and with Kial trees of the same number and specification as mentioned in the marking lists and joint inspection reports.
6. Brief facts leading to the filing of Writ Petition No. 1796/17 are that petitioners are 1st Class State Subjects of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. It is stated that previously, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court for direction to the respondents for sanction of Timber in survey No. 1310 measuring 13 Kanals and 18 Marlas, survey No. 1049 measuring 09 Kanals and 03 Marlas, survey No. 1045 measuring 05 Kanals and 11 Marlas situated at village Naukot, Tehsil Leepa District Jhelum Valley. This Court vide its judgment dated 01.06.2012 accepted the writ petition and directed the respondents to finalize the application of the petitioners for sanction of Timber within 04 months.
7. The respondents filed a review petition before the same bench of this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2012. The respondents in the open Court agreed to allow the petitioners to remove 2328 sft Koil wood from the spot. It is further stated that as the respondents were not serious in allowing the petitioners to transport Timber from the spot. It is submitted that Respondent No. 1 vide letters dated 27.10.2017 and 28.10.2017 addressed to Respondents No. 6 and 8 and directed them to re-survey the spot and clarify whether survey No. 1310 is a private land or Forest land and to mark exact location of the aforesaid survey number. Lastly, it was prayed for setting aside the aforesaid letters.
8. In Writ Petition No. 1271/18 the claim of the petitioners is that the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court against the officials of Forest Department for redressal of their grievance, stating therein that the Army Authorities are not allowing for cutting and removal of trees to the petitioners and in the open Court on 19.10.2017 they agreed to allow them to remove 2328 cft/Koil Wood from the spot but despite Court order dated 19.10.2017, the needful has not been done. Despite the fact that the matter is subjudice before this Court on the instigation of Forest Department and the respondents have started investigation regarding the same matter and Respondent No. 2 Issue Notice to the petitioners through SSP Muzaffarabad vide notice dated 21.06.2018 to appear before Respondent No. 3 on 04.07.2018.
9. After admission of the instant writ petitions, the respondents were directed to file written statement and other documents. The needful has been done, wherein the whole claim of the petitioners have been refuted and prayed for dismissal of the instant writ petitions.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
11. The petitioners filed Writ Petitions No. 2727/15 and 1796/17 before this Court. This Court delivered the judgments separately vide judgment dated 25.06.2019. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgments, the petitioners preferred an appeal before Apex Court. The Apex Court consolidated the writ petitions and remanded the case to decide the matter afresh after arraying the Military Authorities in the writ petition vide judgment dated 14.12.2022. In compliance of judgment of the Apex Court, Military Authorities have arrayed as party in the writ petition vide order dated 26.03.2023.
12. The record reveals that the petitioners, previously filed a writ petition before this Court and claimed that they have filed led an application before the Forests Department for marking of trees in the private Forest and that the Forests Authorities have not finalized the application despite lapse of more than 02 years. This Court accepted the writ petition on 01.06.2012 and directed the Forests officials to finalize the application of petitioners for sanction/removal of timber within four months strictly in accordance with the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Sales and Development of Forests Rules, 2001. A review petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 12.09.2012. The petitioners' filed another contempt application before this Court, wherein, Chief Conservator Forests sought an opportunity to finalize the matter pertaining to survey No. 1310. This Court was inclined to extend one month time to do the needful. The contempt application filed by Syed Ashiq Hussain Shah was consigned to record on 18.06.2013 as judgment of this Court had been implemented in letter and spirit. It is further noticed that the petitioners filed another writ petition before this Court on 30.12.2015, wherein, this Court, directed the Secretary Forests to issue Necessary Forms 24 and 25 to extract and transport the timber from the disputed land. All the previous litigation was initiated on demarcation conducted by the respondents. It is found on the basis of available record that the petitioners are entitled to marking of standing trees, cutting extraction and transportation of timber from the private forest. So, validity of previous judgments delivered by this Court can neither be disputed nor made basis for restraining the respondents from conducting further demarcation of the forest land.
13. In Writ Petition No. 1796/17, the petitioners challenged letters dated 27.10.2017 and 28.10.2017, which are as under:-- Chief Conservator Forest in letter addressed to Chief Conservator Territorial has explained background of the dispute. It has been mentioned that inhabitants of the locality presented an application to Army Authorities by contending that private trees marked in favour of petitioners are in fact demarcated forest and the petitioners have maneuvered to get sanction of the disputed land in connivance with the officials of Forests Department and Revenue Department. On the application Assistant Commissioner Leepa and DFO Hattian Bala jointly visited the spot and reported that survey No. 1310 is apparently a place without trees and has wrongly been shown as private forest. In such a situation, Chief Conservator Forests (Principal) directed Chief Conservator (Territorial) to initiate a fresh joint inspection of disputed land by the authorized committee consisting of DFO Hattian Bala (Div.), DFO Demarcation Muzaffarabad and Extra Assistant Commissioner or a higher authority. It is also necessary to bring on record that Deputy Commissioner/Collector of the District Jhelum Valley directed Assistant Commissioner Leepa, DFO Jhelum Valley and DFO Demarcation Division Muzaffarabad for joint inspection of private forest under survey Nos. 1041, 1042, 1043, 1049, 1051 and 1052 in general and survey No. 1310 in particular under the private Forests Rules 2001. The committee has been directed to report that trees marked in favour of petitioners are in survey No. 1310 and to further report that whether survey No. 1310 has been marked at a proper place during the settlement?
14. The petitioners have challenged the correspondence relating to re-demarcation of the disputed land on the ground that the proposed act is in violation of judgments of the High Court and that the respondents cannot be allowed to turn around and take a new stance now.
15. Whereas, in Writ Petition No. 2727/15, a direction is sought to the respondents to allot all trees marked above 22 "Dia and unmarked below 22" Dia present in the-survey Nos. 1041, 1043, 1045, 1049, 1050, 1052, 1310 at village Nokot Leepa Valley from alternate Jungle at any place. A further direction is sought to the respondents to acquire Jungle total measuring 44 Kanals 14 Marlas at village Nokot Leepa Valley for defense purpose and allot petitioners' Jungle away from LOC of the same area and with kial trees of the same number and specification as mentioned in the marking lists and joint inspection reports.
16. A perusal of relevant record shows that functionaries of Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir i.e Revenue Department and the Forest Department have fulfilled their liabilities in granting approval for cutting and extraction of timber wood from the private forest owned by the petitioners, hence, nothing is required from Government functionaries to do any more on the subject. The record also divulges that DFO Hattian Bala wrote a letter to 75AK Brigade to relax ban on extraction of timber wood. Moreover, Conservator Forests Muzaffarabad also wrote a letter to Brigade Commandant 75AK on 27.07.2017 that ban may be relaxed. The record also postulates that Chief Conservator Forests also moved the Secretary Forests and formation Commandant FSCC Murree and deputed DFO Utilization Division Muzaffarabad as focal person. The concerned DFO Hattian Bala attended a meeting with Army Authorities of Sroopa Brigade on 04.08.2017. It is worthwhile to mention here that the concerned Brigade has taken up the matter with its headquarters with 12 Division Murree. The aforesaid correspondence shows that the Forests Department has already been fulfilled its liability while exercising its efforts to relax ban imposed by the Army Authorities on cutting and transportation of Forest wood. Military Authority was arrayed in the line of respondents in compliance of the order of Apex Court vide order dated 26.01.2023 and notices were issued. Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the Military Authorities and they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 08.03.2023. Although, the Military Authorities did not file written statement but from perusal of the record, it transpired that the petitioners have annexed with the writ petition the letters from Military Authorities addressed to Chief Secretary and Lieutenant Colonel Coordinator as Annexure "PA" and "PQ", whereby, the Military Authorities have categorically refused to allow the petitioners for cutting of standing trees adjacent to line of control to preserve the existing, forest and improve camouflage and concealment. The aforesaid letters have not been assailed by the petitioners. It reflects from the letters of the Military 'Authorities that cutting of the trees is not appropriate on account of defence purpose. Alleged private forest is admittedly situated on line of control where enemy army is on juxtaposition and it is pertinent to mention here that only defence forces can ascertain the suitability of the trees for defence purpose and this Court or any other authority cannot determine the requirement of the forest trees for defence purpose as mentioned in the letters of defence authority.
17. So far as the claim of the petitioners that the respondents may be directed to allot petitioners'
18. Jungle away from LOC of the same area and also allot alternate Jungle at any place is concerned, suffice it to say that neither alternate place or Jungle can be allotted to any g person on their own wish and whims nor any statutory provision is provided in the statute, therefore, the aforesaid claim of the petitioners is baseless, which is repelled.
19. In Writ Petition No. 1271/18, the petitioners challenged the sanctity and genuineness of Letter dated 21.06.2018 issued by Respondent No. 2. The impugned letters have been reproduced in the above paragraphs, whereby on the application of the local public "Joint Investigation Committee" has been constituted to ascertain the ownership of the petitioners regarding Survey No. 1310. To resolve the controversy in hand, it is more appropriate to reproduce the term "Private Forest", which has been defined in Rule 2(d) of the AJ&K Sale & Development of Private Forests Rules, 2001 as under: "Private Forest" means a contiguous area bearing trees that is assessed to Land Revenue and over which owner has undisputed right of ownership and does not include Shamilat Deh, community land or crown land.
20. Similarly, the word "owner" is also defined in Rule 2(c) of the aforesaid Rules as under: "Owner" means a person/persons in whose title the ownership and possession of the private forest is entered singly or jointly in the revenue record.
21. The aforesaid definitions reflects that a private forest should be undisputedly owned by a person and according to Rule 2(c), supra, mere ownership on the revenue record is not sufficient to be the owner of a private forest. A person should have the possession of a private forest. In the instant case, it is admitted by the petitioners as well as by the respondents that the alleged private forest is situated on line of control which transpires that it is not in possession of the petitioners. On the other hand, the ownership of the petitioners is disputed by the local public and to resolve the controversy, the official respondents have constituted a Joint Inspection Committee through impugned letters and the respondents have not passed any adverse order against the petitioners, hence, Writ Petition No. 1271/18 is pre-mature.
22. Moreover, the factual controversy cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction. Similar point came under consideration before the apex Court in a case reported as "Noman Razzaq vs. Faryad Hussain Ch. & 13 others" [2014 SCR 921] wherein it has been observed as under: "Even otherwise, the contents of the writ petition and the plaint reveal that both the parties are claiming their respective plots situated at the one and the same place. One is claiming that he purchased the plot measuring 1 Kanal, whereas, the other is claiming that he purchased plot measuring 10 marlas situated on the same place. Such like controversy cannot be resolved in the writ petition without recording the evidence, which is not the job of the High Court while exercising the powers under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. It is well settled principle on the subject that the factual controversy cannot be reserved in the writ jurisdiction."
23. Another aspect of the case is as to whether the aforesaid area is at verge of control line and cutting of trees will affect the camouflage of defence or not? It is pertinent to mention Here that it is not a mandate of this Court while exercising powers conferred under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, to dilate upon the controversies and resolve the disputed question of facts rather in writ jurisdiction, the matter is decided on the strength of reliable record brought on the surface of file, hence, the relief sought, in the given circumstances, cannot be granted in vacuum on surmises and conjunctures of the petitioners, which create false hopes, Thus, the petitioners, in this guise, are neither aggrieved party within the meaning of Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, nor have locus standi to invoke the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this Court by-way writ petition because such jurisdiction can only be invoked by the aggrieved party who has some legal grievance where any violation of law and rules has been made, hence, no such eventuality appears to have been brought on record or pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments.
24. As hass already been discussed earlier that the petitioners have challenged the sanctity of impugned letters. It is a settled principle of law that letter/notice cannot be challenged through writ jurisdiction as has been held in a case titled as "Shaheen Asad vs. Afsar Yaseen & 04 others"
25. (2000 SCR 308).
26. It is also pertinent to mention here that pre-mature writ petition has been filed before this Court because no adverse or final order has been passed by the competent authority against the petitioners only the impugned letters have been issued against the petitioners.
27. In the light of what has been stated above, the supra writ petitions are not maintainable, which are hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.