Forest Act, 1927
Notification under Section 4—Subject land,  including land in possession of appellants, declared as reserved forest—Claim of local inhabitants—Order of eviction passed by High Court—Appeal—Issue as to whether relief granted in the judgment of Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1986 (4) SCC 753 is only applicable to SC/ST/ other backward communities—Object of such judgment is to further the cause of substantive justice, and to ensure that every party with a valid claim over the notified land is heard in detail, and no arbitrary power to evict local inhabitants is given to the state—Appellants are not from a backward community and nor do they claim to be so—Judgment of Apex Court only grants a right to be heard by a competent authority, and if  such authority rejects a claim, then said claim cannot exist against the situate land—Right to be heard must be granted to all claiming possession of subject land, and substantial right of possession can be granted or denied during the said hearing, by the competent authority, that is to say, the right to be heard must be enjoyed by all, and the right to possess, must be enjoyed by those who have a legitimate claim—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—Remedy granted under 1986 (4) SCC 753 is available to the appellants.
[Paras 16 to 24]
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 226—Exercise of jurisdiction—Re-appreciation of evidence—High Court, while exercising its inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate evidence and arrival of finding of facts, unless the authority which passed the original order did so in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the findings were patently perverse—Concurrent findings of lower courts are neither perverse, nor the said courts have over stepped their jurisdiction—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—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 said evidence through procedure established by law—Legitimacy of 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 lower courts, must only be reversed by the High Courts in the rarest of rare cases—Re-appreciation of evidence done by the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Article 226 is bad in law and is liable to be struck down.
[Paras 25 to 30 & 32]