Sheo Kumar Singh, J.

1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner - State of U.P. through Divisional Forest Officer (North), Lakhimpur Kheri, has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 03.03.1978 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Kheri and the order dated 15.07.1978 passed by opposite party no.2 i.e. District Judge, Kheri.

2. The main controversy in the present writ petition relates to the title over Plot Nos.15 and 21 on which the forest department of the State of U.P. agitates the matter on the ground that after Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the plots in question situated in village Baghauwa, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, which were earlier recorded as Jungle and Jhari on the date of vesting, were vested in the State and after that again declared as forest land, while opposite parties contends right over the plots on the ground that right of sirdari accrues in favour of Jagat Ram son of Chaudhary Ishwar Das (Jat) resident of Neara, Post Office and District Hoshiyarpur (East Punjab) and later on transferred the land in favour of respondents with all title and interest which were vested in him.

3. In brief on 19.03.1954 Government of U.P. issued a notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act including the plots in question i.e. 15-M and 21-M as reserve forest. One Jagat Ram was claiming to be tenure holder of plot nos.15-M and 21-M, which are approximately more than 75 acres of land and he filed an objection before the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act on the basis of a Patta/lease executed by the then Zamindar Shri Padam Bahadur Shah on 22.09.1951. It was contended by the objector Shri Jagat Ram that the entire area was under his cultivation and it could not be acquired for reserve forest. In reply to the objection raised under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act the forest department of the State of U.P. replied that entire land belongs to the State and has been declared as forest land vide Notification issued by the State Government. The Forest Settlement Officer allowed the objection which was challenged by the State/Forest Department under Section 17 of the Forest Act where appeal was allowed on 12.04.1958. Thereafter, a suit under Section 229-B was filed by Jagat Ram which was decided ex-parte by Judicial Officer-II, Kheri, vide order dated 03.05.1961. An application for correction of papers on the basis of order passed by the Judicial Officer was filed before Sub Divisional Officer which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.1965 and again an application was filed by the legal heirs of Jagat Ram after his death which was again dismissed vide order dated 16.11.1966 and matter went up to the Board of Revenue where it was dismissed summarily on 20.12.1966. Shri Madan Gopal and Shri Deo Prakash filed Writ Petition No.486 of 1967 which was allowed vide order dated 12.01.1971 and aggrieved by the judgment and order, a Special Appeal No.24 of 1971 was filed which was allowed vide order dated 19.11.1976 and the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge was set-aside. After the order of appeal decided by the Bench of this Court the matter was sent to the Forest Settlement Officer for issuing notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act but as per version narrated in the writ petition heirs of Jagat Ram filed an application/objection opposing the notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act on the ground that it is contrary to the order passed by the Judicial Officer. The Forest Settlement Officer (opposite party no.3) by his order dated 03.03.1978 declined to issue notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, State of U.P. filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.1978 and aggrieved by that order, this petition has been filed challenging the order of Forest Settlement Officer and District Judge on the ground that controversy relating to land in question has to be decided under the provisions of the Forest Act and it was finally decided by the competent court/authority but when the order reached to its finality, the respondents filed an application under Section 229B by misusing the process of law and thus the order impugned is without jurisdiction and is nullity in the eyes of law. It has further been argued that application of the private respondents for correction of papers regarding mutation in Khatauni by deleting the name of State Government/Forest Department relates to deciding the title or ownership and in the revenue records, the name of the Forest Department finds place and after notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, the objection filed by the person concerned has been heard and decided by the competent authority. Thus, the order of the Forest Settlement Officer declining to issue notification is unjustified and cannot be sustained in the circumstances of the case.

4. By filing counter affidavit it has been contended that the entry in the revenue records relating to 1356F as waste land or jungali ghas or jhar or parti or banjar or janglat was wrong because the land in question was leased out to opposite parties by a Patta executed by the then Zamindar and the respondents were in occupation of the land and became sirdar after abolition of zamindari. It is admitted fact that Jagat Ram had filed an objection under Section 6 of the Forest Act against notification published by U.P. Government in the Gazette dated 03.04.1954 in respect of the land situated in village Baghauwa, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri including the land/plot no.21 approximately 70 acres and plot no.15 approximately 7 acres. The objection shows that the plot in question was subject matter of notification under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act and the matter was heard and decided by the competent authority. The version of the respondents that it is doubtful as to whether the land in question was included in the notification declaring forest was not clear, infact is misconceived in view of the facts narrated in the objection filed by Jagat Ram.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the State/forest department and entries regarding right and title relating to plots in dispute has never been conferred in favour of the opposite parties. Thus, the opposite parties have no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. Further after abolition of zamindari, as per provisions of Section 4 and after enforcement of the by way of notification, all estate situated in U.P. has vested in the State free from all encumbrances.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in spite of the fact that land was previously held by the then Zamindar who leased out the plots to the respondents and he was under cultivatory possession, State authorities or its instrumentalities had not recorded the aforesaid fact in the record of rights maintained for the area to which U.P. Zamindari Act was applicable. It has further been contended that even after notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act their rights were never disturbed as they continued to be in possession of the land.

7. According to petitioners, the crux of the matter is that the name of the petitioners is to be recorded in revenue records as the land has been declared as reserved forest under the Forest Act and the impugned order passed by the Authorities are without jurisdiction as after publication of notification, the revenue courts had no jurisdiction to delete the name of Forest Department in the revenue records.

8. For better understanding, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act regarding vesting of estates in State and consequences of the vesting which are as follows:-

Section 4- Vesting of estates in the State. - (1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the State Government may, by notification, declare that, as from a [date] to be specified, all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from the beginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the date of vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, except as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances.

(2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so considers necessary, to issue, from time to time, the notification referred to in sub-section (1) in respect only of such area or areas as may be specified and all the provisions of subsection (1) shall be applicable to and in the case of every such notification.

Section 6- Consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State. - When the notification under Section 4 has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the beginning of the date of vesting, ensure in the area to which the notification relates, namely :

(a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries-

(i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren), grove-land, forests whether within or outside village boundaries trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove), fisheries, [* * *], tanks, ponds, water-channels, ferries, pathways, abadi sites, hats, bazars and melas (other than hats, bazars and melas held upon land to which Clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply; and

(ii) in all sub-soil in such estates including rights, if any, in mines and minerals, whether being worked or not;

shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances;

(b) all grants and confirmations of title of or to land in any estate so acquired, or of or to any right or privilege in respect of such land or its land revenue shall, whether liable to resumption or not, determine;

(c) (i) all rents, cesses, local rates and sayar in respect of any estate or holding therein for any period after the date of vesting and which, but for the acquisition would be payable to an intermediary, shall vest in and be payable to the State Government and not to the intermediary and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid discharge of the person liable to pay the same;

(ii) where under an agreement or contract made before the date of vesting any rent, cess, local rate or sayar for any period after the said date has been paid to or compounded or released by an intermediary the same shall, notwithstanding the agreement or the contract, be re-coverable by the State Government from the intermediary and may without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be realized by deducting the amount from the compensation money payable to such intermediary under Chapter III;

(d) all arrears of revenue, cesses or other dues in respect of any estate so acquired and due from the intermediary [or an arrear on account of tax on agricultural income assessed under the U.P. Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1948] (U.P. Act III of 1949) for any period prior to the date of vesting shall continue to be recoverable from such intermediary and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be realized by deducting the amount from the compensation money payable to such intermediary under Chapter III;

(e) all amounts ordered to be paid by an intermediary to the State Government under Sections 27 and 28 of the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act, 1934 (U.P. Act XXV of 1934) and all amounts due from him under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (U.P. Act XIX of 1883), or the Agricultural Loans, Act, 1884 (U.P. Act XIX of 1884), shall notwithstanding any thing contained in the said enactments, become due forthwith and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery provided therefor, be realized by deducting the amount from the compensation money payable to such intermediary under Chapter III;

(f) the interest of the intermediary so acquired in any estate shall not be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any Court, Civil or Revenue and any attachment existing at the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date shall, subject to the provisions of Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), cease to be in force;

(g)(i) every mortgage with possession existing on any estate or part of an estate on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall, to the extent of the amount secured on such estate or part, be deemed, without prejudice to the rights of the State Government under Section 4, to have been substituted by a simple mortgage;

(ii) notwithstanding anything contained in the mortgage deed or any other agreement, the amount declared due on a simple mortgage substituted under sub-clause (i) shall carry such rate of interest and from such date as may be prescribed;

(h) no claim or liability enforceable or incurred before the date of vesting by or against suc As to whether h intermediary for any money, which is charged on or is secured by mortgage of such estate or part thereof shall, except as provided in Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), be enforceable against his interest in the estate;

(i) all suits and proceedings of the nature to be prescribed pending in any Court at the date of vesting and all proceedings upon any decree or order passed in any such suit or proceeding previous to the date of vesting shall be stayed;

(j) all mahals and their sub-divisions existing on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting and all engagements for the payment of land revenue or rent by a proprietor, under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, co-sharer or lambardar as such shall determine and cease to be in force.

Section 8-Contract entered into after August 8, 1946, to become void from the date of vesting. - Any contract for grazing or gathering of produce from land or the collection of forest produce or fish from any forest or fisheries entered As to whether into after the eighth day of August, 1946, between an intermediary and any other person in respect of any private forest, fisheries or land lying in such estate shall become void with effect from the date of vesting.

Section 13- Estate in possession of a thekedar. - (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 12 and sub-section (2) of this section a thekedar of an estate or share therein shall, with effect from the date of vesting, cease to have any right to hold or possess as such any land in such estate.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents have also raised certain legal issues for determination which are as follows:-

(i) As to whether the revenue courts can hear any objection regarding the claim of land which has been declared as reserved forest.

(ii) As to whether Section 27-A of Indian Forest Act, 1927, creates a bar of consideration of claim which has been declared as forest reserve.

(iii) Whether any land forming part of holding of any tenure holder can be declared as reserve forest under the provisions of Indian Forest Act.

10. Before considering the issues which arise in the writ petition, it is necessary to look into the scheme and the nature of proceeding which are existing under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Forest Act. 1927, was enacted to consolidate the law relating to forest, the transit of forest-produce and other connected matters. Chapter 11 of the relates to reserved forest. Section 3 provides the power to reserve forests. This Section provides that the State Government may constitute any forest land or waste land which is the property of Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights, a reserved forest. Section 3 reads as under:

"Section 3--Power to reserve forests.--The State Government may constitute any forest-land or waste land which is the property of Government, or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided."

11. Section 3 as in its application to the State of Uttar Pradesh, has been substituted by U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1965 with effect from 23.11.1965, to following effect:

"3. Power to reserve forests.--The State Government may constitute any forest land or waste land or any other land (not being land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove or in any village abadi) which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserve forest in the manner hereinafter provided.'

Explanation.--The expression 'holding' shall have the meaning assigned to, it in the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, the expression 'village abadi' shall have meaning assigned to it in the U.P. Village Abadi Act. 1947."

12. Section 4 provides that whenever it has been decided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette. Section 4 is quoted as below :

"Section 4 : Notification by State Government---(1) Whenever it has been decided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette :

(a) declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest ;

(b) specifying as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land ; and

(c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called "the forest settlement officer") to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits, or in or over any forest produce, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter.

Explanation---For the purpose of Clause (b), it shall be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries.

(2) The officer appointed under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) shall ordinarily be a person not holding any forest office except that of forest settlement officer.

(3) Nothing in this Section shall prevent the State Government from appointing any number of officers not exceeding three, not more than one of whom shall be a person holding any forest office except as aforesaid, to perform the duties of a forest settlement officer under this Act."

Section 5-Bar of accrual of forest-rights.-After the issue of a notification under section 4, no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.

State Amendments

Uttar Pradesh,- For section 5, substitute the following section, namely:-

"5. Bar of accrual of forest rights.- After the issue of the notification under Section 4 no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or a contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land, nor any tree therein felled, girdled, lopped, tapped, or burnt, or its bark or leaves stripped off, or the same otherwise damaged, nor any forest produce removed therefrom, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.

Section 6-Proclamation by Forest Settlement-officer.-When a notification has been issued under section 4, the Forest Settlement-officer shall publish in the local verna cular in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the land comprised therein, a proclamation

(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of the proposed forest;

(b) explaining the consequences which, as hereinafter provided, will ensue on the reservation of such forest; and

(c) fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation, and requiring every person claiming any right mentioned in section 4 or section, 5 within such period either to present to the Forest Settlement-officer a written notice specifying or to appear before him and state, the nature of such right and the amount and particulars of the compensation (if any) claimed in respect thereof.

"Section 7 : Inquiry by forest settlement officer.--The forest settlement officer shall take down in writing all settlements made under Section 6, and shall at some convenient place inquire into all claims duly preferred under that Section, and the existence of any rights mentioned in Section 4 or Section 5 and not claimed under Section 6 so far as the same may be ascertainable from the records of Government and the evidence of any person likely to be acquainted with the same.

13. Section 8 deals with the power of the Forest Settlement Officer. Section 8 is material, since it provides that the forest settlement officer will have all the powers of the civil court in the trial of the suit. Section 9 is with regard to extinction of rights. Sections 8 and 9 are extracted below :

"Section 8--Power of forest settlement officer.--For the purpose of such inquiry, the forest settlement officer may exercise the following powers, that is to say :

(a) power to enter, by himself or any officer authorised by him for the purpose, upon any land, and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same : and

(b) the powers of a civil court in the trial of the suit."

"Section 9--Extinction of rights,--Rights in respect of which no claim has been preferred under Section 6, and of the existence of which no knowledge has been acquired by inquiry under Section 7, shall be extinguished, unless before the notification under Section 20 is published, the person claiming them satisfies the forest settlement officer that he had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim within the period fixed under Section 6."

14. Section 11 of theprovides that the forest settlement officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the claim to a right in or over any land. Sub-section (2) of Section 11 provides that if claim is admitted in whole or in part then he will either exclude such land from limit of the proposed forest or come to an agreement with the owner thereof for the surrender of his rights, or proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 17 provides for right of appeal to a claimant against the order of forest settlement officer to such officer of revenue department, of rank not lower than that of Collector as the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, to hear appeals from such orders. This Section also contemplates creation of a Court,namely, Forest Court. Section 20 provides for issue of notification declaring reserved forest. Sections 17, 18 and 20 are extracted below :

Section 17- Appeal from order passed under section 11, section 12, section 15 or section 16.- Any person who has made a claim under this Act, or any Forest-officer or other person generally or specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may, within three months from the date of the order passed on such claim by the Forest Settlement-officer under section 11, section 12, section 15 or section 16, present an appeal from such order to such officer of the Revenue Department of rank not lower than that of a Collector, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint to hear appeals from such orders:

Provided that the State Government may establish a Court (hereinafter called the Forest Court) composed of three persons to be appointed by the State Government, and when the Forest Court has been so established, all such appeals shall be presented to it.

17 Appeal from order passed under section 11, section 12, section 15 or section 16- Any person who has made a claim under this Act, or any Forest officer or other person generally or specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf may, within three months from the date of the order passed on such claim by the Forest Settlement officer under Section 11, section 12, section 15 or section 16, present an appeal from such order to the District Judge."

Section 18- Appeal under section 17.(1) Every appeal under section 17 shall be made by petition in writing, and may be delivered to the Forest Settlement-officer, who shall forward it without delay to the authority competent to hear the same.

(2) If the appeal be to an officer appointed under section 17, it shall be heard in the manner prescribed for the time being for the hearing of appeals in matters relating to land-revenue.

(3) If the appeal be to the Forest Court, the Court shall fix a day and a convenient place in the neighbourhood of the proposed forest for hearing the appeal, and shall give notice thereof to the parties, and shall hear such appeal accordingly.

(4) The order passed on the appeal by such officer or Court, or by the majority of the members of such Court, as the case may be, shall, subject only to revision by the State Government, be final.

State Amendments

Uttar Pradesh- For section 18, substitute the following section, namely:-

"18 Appeal under Section 17- (1) Every appeal under section 17 shall be made by petition in writing and may be delivered to the Forest Settlement-officer, who shall forward it without delay to the District Judge.

(2) The District Judge may, after giving to the parties an opportunity of being heard, confirm, set aside or modify the order under appeal, or remand the case to the Forest Settlement -officer with such directions as he thinks fit.

(3) During the pendency of appeal the District Judge may, for sufficient cause, stay, on such terms, if any, as he thinks fit, the operation of the order appealed from and pass any incidental or consequential order.

(4) The order passed on appeal shall, subject to the provision of section 22, be final."

Section 20-Notification declaring forest reserved.-(1) When the following events have occurred, namely:-

(a) the period fixed under section 6 for preferring claims have elapsed and all claims (if any) made under that section or section 9 have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement-officer;

(b) if any such claims have been made, the period limited by section 17 for appealing from the orders passed on such claims has elapsed, and all appeals (if any) presented within such period have been disposed of by the appellate officer or Court; and

(c) all lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement-officer has, under section 11, elected to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), have become vested in the Government under section 16 of that Act,

the State Government shall publish a notification in the Official Gazette, specifying definitely, according to boundary-marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification.

(2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest.

State Amendments

Uttar Pradesh- After section 20, insert the following section, namely:-

"20 A. Certain forest land or waste land when deemed to be reserved forest.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force, including the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949 or the U.P. Merged States (Application of Laws) Act, 1950, or any order issued thereunder, any forest land or waste land in a merged State which immediately before the date of merger (hereinafter in this section referred to as the said date)-

(a) was deemed to be reserved forest under any enactment in force in that State, or

(b) was recognized or declared by the Ruler of such State as a reserved forest under any law (including any enactment, rule, regulation, order, notification, custom or usage having the force of law) for the time being in force, or

(c) was dealt with a reserved forest in any administrative report or in accordance with any working plan or register maintained and acted upon under the authority of the Ruler.

Shall be deemed to be and since the said date to have continued to be a reserved forest subject to the same rights or concession, if any, in favour of any person as were in force immediately before the said date.

Explanation I.- A certificate of the State Government or of any officer authorized in his behalf to the effect that a report, working plan or register was maintained and acted upon under the authority of the Ruler shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that it was so maintained and acted upon.

Explanation II.- Any question as to the existence or extent of any right or concession referred to in this sub-section shall be determined by the State Government, whose decision, given after such enquiry, if any, as it thinks fit, shall be final.

Explanation III.- Working plan' includes any, plan scheme, project, map, drawings and lay-outs prepared for the purpose of carrying out the operations in course of the working and management of forests.

(2) No right shall be deemed to have been acquired on or after the said date in or over any land mentioned in sub-section (1) except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the State Government or some person in whom such right was vested immediately before the said date and no fresh clearings since made for cultivation or for any other purpose (except clearings made in accordance with any concessions granted by the Ruler and in force immediately before the said date or in accordance with the rules made by the State Government in this behalf since the said date) shall be recognized as or deemed to be lawful, anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding.

(3) The State Government may within five years from the commencement of the Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1965, revise any arrangement of the nature specified in section 22, and pass any incidental or consequent, order, including any direction to the effect that any of the proceedings specified in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter be taken.

(4) In relation to any land mentioned in sub-section (1), the references in sections 24 and 26-

(a) to section 23 shall be construed as references to sub-section (2); and

(b) to rights admitted, recorded or continued under section 14 or section 15 shall be construed as references to rights of pasture or to forest produce admitted, recorded or continued in or under the corresponding enactment, law or document referred to in sub-section (1).

(5) Without prejudice to any action that may be or may have been taken for ejectment, vacation of encroachment or recovery of damages in respect of any unauthorized occupation of or trespass over any land mentioned in sub-section (1), or for seizure, confiscation, disposal or release (on payment of value or otherwise) of any forest produce in respect of which any forest offence has been committed in relation to such land or of any tools, boats, carts, or cattle used in committing such offence, nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorize the conviction of any person for any act done before the commencement of the Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1965, which was not an offence before such commencement.

Section 23 and 24 of the Act, which are also relevant in the present context are reproduced herein under:-

"Section 23- No right acquired over reserved forest, except as here provided.-No right of any description shall be acquired in or over a reserved forest except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification under section 20 was issued.

Section 24- Rights not to be alienated without sanction.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 23, no right continued under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15 shall be alienated by way of grant, sale, lease mortgage or otherwise, without the sanction of the State Government:

Provided that, when any such right is appendant to any land or house, it may be sold or otherwise alienated with such land or house.

(2) No timber or other forest-produce obtained in exercise of any such right shall be sold or bartered except to such extent as may have been admitted in the order recorded under section 14.

Section-26 Acts prohibited in such forests. (1) Any person who -

(a) makes any fresh clearing prohibited by section 5, or

(b) sets fire to a reserved forest, or, in contravention of any rules made by the State Government in this behalf, kindles any fire, or leaves any fire burning, in such manner as to endanger such a forest;

or who, in a reserved forest

(c) kindles, keeps or carries any fire except at such seasons as the Forest-officer may notify in this behalf,

(d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass;

(e) causes any damage by negligence in felling any tree or cutting or dragging any timber;

(f) fells, girdles, lops, or bums any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, the same;

(g) quarries stone, bums lime or charcoal, or collects, subjects to any manufacturing process, or removes, any forest-produce;

(h) clears or breaks up any land for cultivation or any other purpose;

(i) in contravention of any rules made in this behalf by the State Government hunts, shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps or snares; or

(j) in any area in which the Elephants Preservation Act, 1879 (6 of 1879), is not in force, kills or catches elephants in contravention of any rules so made,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, in addition to such compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting Court may direct to be paid.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit -

(a) any act done by permission in writing of the Forest-officer, or under any rule made by the state Government; or

(b) the exercise of any right continued under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15, or created by grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government under section 23.

(3) Whenever fire is caused wilfully or by gross negligence in a reserved forest, the State Government may (notwithstanding that any penalty has been inflicted under this section) direct that in such forest or any portion there of the exercise of all rights of pasture or to forest produce shall be suspended for such period as it thinks fit.

15. Section 27A has been added by the U.P. Act No. 23 of 1965 which reads as under :

'Section 27A--Finality of orders, etc.--No act done, order made or certificate issued in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Chapter shall, except as herein before provided, be called in question in any Court."

16. From the scheme of the Forest Act and various various provisions as referred above, it is evident that in the proceeding beginning with notification under Section-4 all claims regarding land included in the notification are adjudicated by an authorised officer. Section 8 gives all powers of the civil courts to the forest settlement officer available in trial of the suits. There is a provision of appeal under Section 17 to higher forum. The notification under Section 4 is published in Official Gazette appointing Forest Settlement Officer to inquire and determine any right in or over any land. Forest Settlement Officer also issues a proclamation in every town and village in the neighbourhood to make the proceedings known to all concerned. The adjudication of all claims to the land is by a special court with right of appeal. The enquiry regarding claims is for the purpose of finding out as to whether the land in question can be declared as reserved forest or it cannot be declared reserved forest due to the rights or claims of claimants and the provision further contemplates that even if right or claim of claimants has been established there is procedure for coming to agreement with the owner for surrender of his right or to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act. The provision of the contemplates extinction of all rights regarding land included in the reserved forest.

17. Section 27A has been added giving finality to the orders passed in proceedings under the Indian Forest Act and it creates express bar by saying that the order made or certificate issued in exercise of powers conferred under Chapter II shall not be called to question in any Court. While considering the question of exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court, Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dhulabhai etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 1969 AIR(SC) 78 has laid down principle for determination regarding exclusion of jurisdiction. It was laid down in paragraph 32 (1) at page 89 as under :

"Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure."

18. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the similar controversy in State of U.P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1996 AllLJ 1393. In the aforesaid case before the Apex Court also, the land in dispute was notified as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Forest Act. Before the consolidation courts, the claimants claimed sirdari right and asserted that the land was Illegally subjected to be proceeding under the Forest Act and the notification declaring the land as reserved forest was illegal. The consolidation courts accepted objection of the claimants and allowed their objections. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court against which an appeal was filed before the Apex Court. After examining the nature of proceedings under the Forest Act, the Apex Court laid down in paragraph 10 :

"10. It is thus obvious that the forest settlement officer has the powers of a civil court and his order is subject to appeal and finally revision before the State Government. The Act is complete Code in itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring and notifying a reserve forest. Once a notification under Section 20 of thedeclaring a land as reserved forest is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person come to an end and are no longer available. The notification is binding on the consolidation authorities in the same way as a decree of the civil court. The respondents could very well file objections and claims including objection regarding the nature of the land before the forest settlement officer. They did not file any objection or claim before the authorities in the proceedings under the. After the notification under Section 20 of the Act, the respondents could not have raised any objection qua the said notification before the consolidation authorities. The consolidation authorities were bound by the notification which had achieved finality."

19. The Apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that the respondents could not have raised any objection qua the notification under Section 20 before the consolidation authorities.

20. In Maharaja Sir Pateshwari Prasad Singh of Balrampur. Dharam Karva Nidhi v. State of U.P. through Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division. Balrampur and Ors.,1979 RevDec 142 the learned single Judge took the view that if the rights are adjudicated by the forest settlement officer, those findings by a competent tribunal are binding in the consolidation/revenue proceedings. It was held at page 145 :

"In view of the fact that rights of the petitioner were adjudicated as against the State by the forest settlement officer, whose findings were affirmed in appeal, the said findings being findings by a competent tribunal, the same had a binding effect. The said findings will also be binding even in consolidation proceedings. If the rights of the parties have been decided under the Forest Act then this finding will be binding between the parties before the consolidation authorities as they were also to decide the very same thing which was already decided. Section 11, C.P.C., as such, will not apply, but general principles of res-judicata will apply in respect of the findings recorded by the forest settlement officer which. In any view, is a tribunal of competent jurisdiction and the consolidation authorities are bound by it."

21. The Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation laid down that forest settlement officer having the power of the civil courts and his orders being subject to appeal and revision are final and, once notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act has been issued declaring the land as reserved forest it is not open to raise objection before the consolidation authorities qua the said notification. Apex Court having laid down in 1996 ALJ 1393 that the consolidation authorities were bound by the notification issued under Section 20 of Forest Act which have achieved finality. Adjudication by Forest Settlement Officer regarding the rights of a claimant are final and cannot be reopened by consolidation authorities otherwise there may be two conflicting judgments on the same issue which has never been the intention of the law. The decision by the forest settlement officer cannot be said to be judgment coram non judice nor it can be said that the Judgments of the forest settlement officer are nullity nor it can be said that the said authority had no jurisdiction to determine about the nature of land included in the notification.

22. In view of the above discussion with regard to question No. 1, it is held that the revenue/consolidation courts or authority other than the authority as mentioned in the Forest Act cannot entertain a claim with regard to land which is covered by notification under the Forest Act, 1927, and with regard to question No. 2 it is held that the Section 27A of the Forest Act creates express bar for adjudication of claim regarding reserved forest in any subsequent proceedings.

23. As regard the third question, the assertion of the privae respondents is that the land included in holding of a tenure-holder cannot be declared as reserved forest as such notifications under the Forest Act are without jurisdiction. As noted above, Section-3 gives power to the State Government to constitute any forest land or waste land, which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary right as the reserved forest. Section 4 contemplates issue of notification with regard to land which is to be declared as reserved forest. Emphasis has been laid with regard to amended provision of Section 3 as substituted by the U.P. Act, 23 of 1965, on the basis of the amended definition, it has been submitted that the land which comprised of any holding or grove or in any village abadi cannot be declared as reserved forest. The Division Bench of this Court in Om Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.,1980 AllLJ 78 summary of cases (77), had considered the provisions of Forest Act, 1927, including amended Section 3 of Forest Act. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case has held that even according to the amended definition, the third category of land, namely, "or any other land not being land for the time being comprised in any holding or any village abadi" does not control the first two categories, namely, forest land or waste land Section-3 covers forest land and waste land irrespective of whether the same comprise in a holding or not. The forest land or waste land, if it comprised in a holding, can always be declared as reserved forest exercising the powers under Section 3. The provision of Section 3 of the Forest Act cannot be read to the effect that a forest land or waste land included in any holding cannot be declared reserved forest. The said interpretation will run contrary to the object of Forest Act. A tenure-holder may have a forest land or waste land in his holding but if the said holding is to be excluded from declaration of reserved forest, the same will become beyond the power of the State to declare it reserved forest. The provision of Section 11 of Forest Act which contemplates that the land included under Section 4, even if it belongs to a claimant, can be acquired under Land Acquisition Act, clearly contemplates that the forest land or waste land included in the holding of tenure-holder can also be included in reserved forest.

24. The word "forest land" has not been defined under the Forest Act. The definition of forest land was added by Section 38 (b) by U.P. Act No. 23 of 1965. Section 38A (b) defines forest and Sub-section (c) defines forest land which are quoted below :

"Section 38A (b) "forest" means a tract of land covered with trees, shrubs, bushes or woody vegetation whether of natural growth or planted by human agency, and existing or being maintained with or without human effort, or such tract of land on which such growth is likely to have an effect on the supply of timber, fuel, forest produce, or grazing facilities, or on climate, stream-flow, protection of land from erosion, or other such matters and shall include :

(i) land covered with stumps of trees of a forest;

(ii) land which is part of a forest or was lying within a forest on the first day of July, 1952 ;

(iii) such pasture land, waterlogged or cultivable or non-cultivable land, lying within, or adjacent to, a forest as may be declared to be a forest by the State Government;

(c) "forest land" means a land covered by a forest or intended to be utilised as a forest."

25. The definition of word "forest" is very wide which also includes a tract of land - covered with trees, shrubs, bushes or woody vegetation whether of natural growth or planted by human agency. Section 38A (b) (iii) further clarifies that cultivable or non-cultivable land, lying within, or adjacent to, a forest may be declared to be a forest by the State Government. The word "claimant" has also been defined in Section 38A (a) which is extracted below :

"(a) "Claimant" as respects any land means a person claiming to be entitled to the land or any interest therein acquired, owned, settled or possessed or purported to have been acquired, owned, settled or possessed whether under, through or by any lease or licence executed prior to the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or under and in accordance with any provision of any enactment. Including the said Act."

26. The word "forest" came for consideration before the Apex Court in T.N. Godauarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., 1997 2 SCC 267. The Apex Court said that the word 'forest' must be understood according to its dictionary meaning and will not only include forest as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as the forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. In paragraph 4. It was laid down by the Apex Court :

"4. ..... The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 20(1) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land" occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership."

27. Thus, if any area of land is in nature of forest and is recorded in the tenure of any tenure-holder or in the name of intermediary/proprietor thekedar (as before abolition of zamindari), the land can be declared as reserved forest irrespective of the ownership of land. Under Indian Forest Act, 1927, power is given to declare the forest land/waste land as reserved forest irrespective of its ownership. Thus, even if forest land or waste land is included in a tenure-holder's tenure, there is no prohibition in any law from declaring the said land as forest land. The third category apart from forest land and waste land which has been added by the U.P. Act 23 of 1965, i.e., any other land (not being land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove or in any village abadi] refers to any other land other than forest land or waste land. Thus, if the land is neither forest nor waste land, the same cannot be declared as reserved forest if it is comprised in any holding or grove or in village abadi. Thus, in fact the U.P. Act 23 of 1965 added one more category of land which can be declared apart from forest or waste land. The scope of Section 3 as applicable in U.P. after U.P. Act 23 of 1965 is wider than the original Section 3 of the Forest Act. This view has already been expressed by the Division Bench in Om Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1980 Ald. 78 summary of cases (73).

28. From the above discussion, it is clear that forest land or waste land included in holding of a tenure-holder can also be declared as reserved forest and there is no prohibition even in amended Section 3 vide U.P. Act 23 of 1965. The prohibition which has been created by amended Section-3 is with regard to only any other land not being land for time being comprised in any holding or grove or in any village abadi. The words' not being land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove or any village abadi do not control the word forest land or waste land used in Section 3. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927, in Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 1963 AIR(SC) 1019. The Apex Court laid down in paragraph 29 as under :-

"29. It is next urged that even if Sections 38A to 38C are ancillary to Chapter II, they would not apply to -the petitioner's land, as Chapter II deals inter alia with waste land or forest land, which is the property of the Government, which is dealt with under Chapter V. That is so. But unless the petitioner can show that the land in dispute in this case is his property and not the property of the State. Chapter II will apply to it. Therefore, the land in dispute vested in the State under Section 6 of the Abolition Act and became the property of the State. It is however, contended on behalf of the petitioner that if he is held to be a Sirdar in proper proceeding, the land would be his property and therefore, Chapter V-A, as originally enacted, if it is ancillary to Chapter II would not apply to the land in dispute. We are of opinion that there is no force in this contention. We have already pointed out that under Section 6 of the Abolition Act all property of intermediaries including the land in dispute vested in the State Government and became its property. It is true that under Section 18, certain lands were deemed to be settled as holder of lands, but it is clear that after land vests in the State Government under Section 6 of the Abolition Act, there is no provision therein for divesting of what has vested in the State Government. It is, however, urged on behalf of the petitioner that he claims to be the proprietor of this land as a bhumidhar, or Sirdar because of certain provisions in the. There was no such proprietary right as bhumidhari right before the Abolition Act. The Abolition Act did away with all proprietary rights in the area to which it applied and created three classes of tenure by Section 129; bhumidhar, sirdar and asami, which were unknown before. Thus, bhumidhar, sirdar and asami are all tenure-holders under the Abolition Act and they hold their tenure under the State in which the proprietary right vested under Section 6.

29. Paragraph 1 of the writ petition says that plots in question were recorded as jungle and jhari on the date of vesting and after that it vested in the State of U.P. While replying the facts in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.1 dated 02.08.1980 in paragraph 2, it has been stated that the contents of paragraph 1 of the writ petition are not denied. This discloses vesting of right, title and interest in the State of U.P. Further it has been replied that the land in question was not recorded as jungle and jhari while perusal of the records of 1356F reveal the entry of jungle and jhari. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is notification dated 29.03.1954 whereby the land in question was declared and notified as reserved forest. It was measured by pillars and chains as per manual relating to measurement.

30. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents are transferee of Jagat Ram and have a title over the land in dispute on behalf of Jagat Ram. In reply thereof, it has been argued on behalf of the State that the respondents can have only those rights which were with Jagat Ram who was contesting with the State authorities regarding the right and title over the plots and vide order of the competent authority the same was decided under the Forest Act. The right and title which were not vested in the ownership of Jagat Ram can not be transferred to the present respondents. The only basis for the argument of learned counsel for the respondents is the order passed by the Judicial Officer, and learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties which was already determined by the Commissioner vide judgment and order dated 12.04.1958 passed in appeal filed under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act. Since prior to the order of the Judicial Officer the entry in the revenue records was in favour of the State as junglat and jhari' and thus this entry cannot be deleted by way of transfer made by Jagat Ram. At the time of transfer, Jagat Ram was contesting for his right over the land in dispute. Thus, he cannot transfer better title than he had at the time of transfer. Since he had no title on the records, he cannot transfer the better title to the respondents. After the notification of Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act in the year 1954, no proceeding can be taken by any authority other than the authority as mentioned in the Forest Act and the version of the learned counsel for the respondents that in 1966 there was report from the department to release the entire land from out of the notification, is not tenable.

31. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that a suit was filed in 1979 by Madan Gopal and Shishupal Singh in the Court of Civil Judge Kheri for an injunction restraining the defendants from issuing notification under the Indian Forest Act vide suit no.46 of 1979 whereby the court restrained to issue any notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act.

32. Now, the question is as to whether such an order could have been issued under the Indian Forest Act or the Court has jurisdiction to pass an order. In light of the provisions contained in Section 27-A of the Indian Forest Act, no act done, order made or certificate is issued in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Chapter shall, except as hereinbefore provided, be called in question in any Court. The provision under Forest Act after notification under Section 4 is for filing an objection and then by filing an appeal and after the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer the case was preferred before the competent court where application for mutation of name in place of the State Government/junglat/jhari has been turned down/rejected. Case no.380 under UPZA & LR Act was decided on 17.02.1976 while as per provision contained in Section 4, Sections 17 and 18 and Section 27-A of the Forest Act, no Court other than the Court/authority mentioned in the Indian Forest Act can entertain any suit or no act done or certificate issued in exercise of power under the Forest Act can be questioned in any Court. Thus, the order dated 17.02.1976 was without jurisdiction and the same has been quashed in the writ petition filed before this Court. Further, the case no.380 under UPZA & LR Act was decided on the basis of a Patta executed by then Zamindar in favour of Jagat Ram. After the date of vesting, land in question was not under ownership or possession of the Zamindar and it had vested in the State of U.P. free from all encumbrances,therefore, the then Zamindar had no right to execute any Patta and if any Patta was executed then it was executed to defraud the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Act. In accordance with the provisions contained in the Indian Contract Act, any contract to defraud the provisions of law or against the provisions of law is void having no executable force. The order passed in Case No.380 under U.P.Z.A. & LR Act gives right of sirdari whereas right of sirdari' was not known to the Land Manual before Zamindari Abolition Act. Further the judgment of writ petition no.486 of 1967 has been questioned and challenged by way of Special Appeal and it was raised before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nighasan but the same was not taken into account. On perusal of the old records and pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the land in dispute was in the nature of uncultivated waste land or forest land prior to date of vesting and on the date of vesting it remained to be so even thereafter. After the notification of Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act issued on 29.03.1954, the land in question was included within the boundaries given in the aforesaid notification and under Section 5 of the Indian Forest Act after the issue of notification under Section 4, no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued, and no fresh clearing for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land, nor any tree therein felled, girdled, lopped, tapped, or burnt, or its bark or leaves stripped off, or the same otherwise damaged, nor any forest produce removed therefrom, except in accordance with rules made by the State Government. It seems that Jagat Ram from whom the present respondents claim to have acquired right through transfer of property has interpreted the words used in Section-5 where there is a provision "or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued". This was interpreted that the then Zamindar had right to transfer the land by way of Patta and Jagat Ram asserted his claim on the basis of said Patta. The record reveals that the land was entered as junglat and jhari of forest department. This shows that the executor of Patta had no right and title to transfer the land to Jagat Ram. If executor of lease or Patta had no right and title then the transferee could not have a better title than the executor himself. Further Jagat Ram claiming to be sole tenant of the entire land in dispute filed an objection under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act before the Forest Settlement Officer and it was decided finally by the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri, in Appeal under Sections 17 & 18 of the Indian Forest Act on 12.04.1958 and under Indian Forest Act this order has attained finality. Moreover, it was never challenged by Jagat Ramand as such Jagat Ram or any person claiming through him is bound by the order dated 12.04.1958 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of Indian Forest Act. Under the provisions contained in Section 18(4) the order passed by the authority concerned shall be final subject to revision by the State Government. There is nothing on record that Jagat Ram or the person claiming on his behalf had ever filed any revision before the State Government or State Government has ever passed any order of de-notifying the forest land. Any suit or any proceeding filed by the Jagat Ram in any Court or before any authority other than the authority or Court as mentioned in the Forest Act was without jurisdiction, having no sanctity of law.

33. It is contended on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by Jagat Ram for correction of papers on the basis of order passed by the Judicial Officer was dismissed twice. The matter was agitated up to the Board of Revenue where the application of Mr. Jagat Ram was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.1966. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.486 of 1967, which was allowed in the year 1971 but the Special Appeal No.24 of 1971 filed by the Forest Department of State was allowed vide order dated 19.11.1976 and petition filed by the respondents was dismissed. The proceeding under Section 229B was decided during the pendency of the Special Appeal No.24 of 1971 and later on Special Appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and the previous orders under question were quashed and thus any decision taken under Section 229B was without any authority and against the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and also against the direction and order passed in Special Appeal No.24 of 1971.

34. At the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, an objection was raised by the opposite parties before the Forest Settlement Officer, which was heard and further a suit was filed before the Court where a direction was given not to issue notification under Section 20 of the. Once the notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act, it has attained finality after the decision of the objection and appeal and no revision was filed before the State Government as provided under the, the Forest Settlement Officer had no alternative except to issue the notification under Section 20 of the. Further once the land in question was included under Section 4 of theand it is admitted fact that the opposite parties had filed objection against the notification which was heard and decided finally by the appellate authority, Forest Settlement Officer did not possess the jurisdiction to exclude the land which had been declared as a reserved forest.

35. The respondents alleged their right on the basis of Patta which is said to be executed on 22.03.1951 and later on registered on 21.11.1951 is meaningless because after notification under Section 4 of the Zamindari Abolition Act all estate situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State from the date so specified and as per provision contained in Section 6 of the ZA &LR Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or any other law for the time being in force, all right, title and interest has vested in the State of U.P. Thus, even if there was any Patta in favour of the respondents (though it has not been fully proved) the executor of the Patta had no right and title to execute the Patta as the land had vested in the State free from encumbrances and later on, it was declared as forest.

36. Our above view is fortified by the decision rendered in the case of Jogender Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (2002) 46 ALR 657 , wherein it was found that even if the opposite parties have any right as sirdar or bhumidhar to declare the land as forest land by virtue of allocation of right as sirdar the respondents are only a tenure holder and the State is the proprietor of the entire land in the State to which the Abolition Act applied. It is not disputed that the Abolition Act applies to the land in dispute and therefore the State is the proprietor of the land in dispute and the respondents, even if sirdar, would still be a tenure holder. Further the land in dispute is either waste land or forest land though it is not converted to agriculture and it was reported to be recorded as junglat and jhari over which the State has proprietary right and therefore Chapter II will clearly apply to this land. There is nothing on record that the respondents had ever paid any revenue on the basis of sirdar.

37. It may be clarified that Writ petition no.2548 of 1978 was the subject matter of Civil Appeal No.4607 of 2004 whereby by the order dated 23.09.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.2548 of 1978 was set-aside by the Apex Court with following observation:-

"From perusal of the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as of the courts below, we find that there is some confusion as to exactly what land was covered by notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short the'). In the notification dated 29.03.1954, mention is made of pillar numbers, but it is not clear whether part of Plot No.21 or full plot is covered by notification under Section 4 of theand whether any claim under Section 6 of thewas filed in respect of the plot treated as forest.

From the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set-aside the impugned order of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, expeditiously. No costs."

38. A question was raised as to whether Plot no.21 was included in the notification issued under Section 4 or not. It is to be pointed out here that respondents had raised the question before the forest authorities regarding both the plots and objection was decided against which an appeal was filed and the land in question was found to be within the notification issued under Section 4 of the. The second question which was raised by the respondents is that Schedule of Section 4 indicates an area of 588 acres of village Baghauwa, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri bounded by pillars and chains and it is argued that the land has not been shown by plot number.

39. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Plot no.21 (full plot) was covered by notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act against which objection was filed and decided up to the appellate authority. Schedule A of the notification reveals that the area of Plot no.21 measuring 73.50 acres (total area) has been included under Section 4 of the Forest Act. Further vide order dated 12.04.1958 in 1363-1365 Fasli, the name of the forest department has been incorporated over the land in question. In Schedule A Plot nos.1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 measuring more than 282.13 acres of land have been notified and declared to be forest land and by measuring this has been shown that the village, khasra numbers, chains and other measurements are applicable in the forest department.

40. This Court vide order dt 10.12.2012 had directed the Chief Conservator of Forest,to appear in person and to assist the Court with regard to the fact as to whether this plot was covered under the notification or not. In compliance thereof, SCAhas been filed with the following facts:-

A) Plot nos.15 and 21 were recorded as jungle and jhari on the date of vesting.

B) In the notification dated 19.03.1954 issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act this area was covered.

C) Under Section 17 of thean appeal was filed which was allowed on 12.04.1958 which reached its finality and this was never challenged by the aggrieved person.

D) Jagat Ram under whom the respondents are claiming the right filed a suit under Section 229-B on the basis of Patta, which was without jurisdiction and against the provisions of the Forest Act, and claim for recording their names under Sections 33 and 39 of Land Revenue Act was filed which was rejected. An appeal filed in 1958 was again rejected by the Commission and the revision again was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue.

E) A writ petition was filed by the opposite parties which was allowed but the Special Appeal No.24 of 1971 filed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.1971 was allowed and the previous judgment and order was set-aside because the orders passed on the correction of records application was not maintainable.

41. In light of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court, we have examined the record and found that Jagat Ram who claimed to have right by means of Patta over the land in dispute filed objection before the Forest Settlement Officer. Thus, it was within his knowledge that the land was included in the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act. Further it is version of the petitioner that the land has been declared as forest land. Thirdly, it was previously recorded as junglat and later on vide order of the competent authority it has been recorded as forest land. Thus it is clear that the land in question was subject matter of litigation and notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was issued and the objection so filed has been finally heard and decided by the competent court. As discussed above, the State has every right under Zamindari Abolition Act and the Forest Act to declare the land as forest and there is no justification to prevent the State from issuing a notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act.

42. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in light of the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the land is to be surveyed first and outer boundaries are demarcated through the process of measurement of chains and angles and/or marked by pillars. The standard practice followed for surveying and leveling in all cases where notification for declaration of reserved forest is to be made, is subject matter of forest colleges, and survey rules have been filed with the affidavit which shows the method of measurement of boundaries, pillars and chains. The measurement which has been given by chains and pillars includes the land in question. The measurement including Plot no.15 and 21 has been given in details by means of forward and backward bearings showing the first pillar on the tree-junction of village Baghauwa-Pakariya and Maraucha and its forward and backward bearing with pillar no.33 and pillar no.2 have been given in details thereafter as 44 degrees and 30 minutes and 224 degrees and 30 minutes respectively. This measurement includes the land in question.

43. Here it is relevant to mention that in compliance of the direction given by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2017, an affidavit has been filed by the forest department that in the revenue records of 1356-1359 F it has been recorded as Digar Darakhta" and "lambi ghas". In 1359 F it was also recorded as ghas' and darakhta'. Thus contention of learned counsel for the respondents that land was recorded in favour of the Zamindar or in favour of Jagar Ram does not find support from the revenue records.

44. A direction was also issued to report as to whether the land was within the notification under Section 4 and by a joint report which was submitted by the forest, revenue and forest settlement department alongwith the map shows that the plot in question was included in the notification issued under Section 4 of the.

44. In light of the order passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4607 of 2004 decided on 23.09.2010 we have gone through the measurement/question as to whether plot no.21 was part of the notification issued under Section 4 or not and we find that both the plots were included in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. From the above discussions, it is clear that the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1996 AllLJ 1393 is fully applicable in the case and the revenue authorities or the authorities other than the authorities mentioned in the Forest Act cannot adjudicate the claim over the land included in the notification under Section 4 or 20 of the Forest Act.

45. On the basis of above legal propositions, we conclude the present petition as follows:-

I. From the date of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act all the estate situate in U.P. vested in the State and stand transferred and vested in the State free from all encumbrances.

II. The land in question was previously in 1356F or before that was recorded as junglat/ghas/waste land.

III. Under the provisions of Section 3 of the Forest Act, the State may constitute any forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary right and declare it as reserved forest. The land in question was recorded as junglat being under the proprietary right of the State and State has every authority to declare the land as forest land.

IV. After notification of Section 4 of the Forest Act no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government. It is not a case where grant was made by the Government.

V. No right shall be alienated by a grant, sale or otherwise without the sanction of the State Government. Jagat Ram had no authority to transfer the land. Thus, the respondents have no better title than Jagat Ram.

VI. As reported by the revenue authorities the land was recorded as bushes or woody vegetation and it is included in forest in light of Section 38(a) & (b) of U.P. Act No.XXIII of 1965.

VII. After the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act late Jagat Ram through whom respondents claim their right on the basis of a transfer deed, had filed an objection under Section 6 of the Forest Act and it was decided in the year 1958 and the land was declared as forest land. Thus the dispute reached to its finality, as indicated above, and except revision before the State no authority has jurisdiction to determine the rights as contained in Section 27-A of the Forest Act.

VIII. By way of measurement and by way of notification the petitioners have proved that the land in question is included in the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act.

46. Before parting with the order, we direct the Chief Secretary of U.P. to constitute a Committee consisting Principal Conservator of Forest with Commissioner/ District Magistrate/ Divisional Forest Officer/ Sub Divisional Magistrate or any other Officer as may be deemed fit, having jurisdiction over local area and to examine and verify the records relating to land vested in the State Government/declared as forest reserved or forest land and to ensure that the land actually vested in the State Government vide notification/order or by operation of any Law is entered in the relevant records and name of the State Government is corrected and incorporated. Copy of the same be kept with the Principal Conservator of Forest and concerned revenue records. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. within fifteen days.

47. On the basis of submissions made above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 03.03.1978 passed by opposite party no.3 and judgment and order dated 15.07.1978 passed by opposite party no.2 deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and both the orders mentioned above are hereby quashed. No order as to costs.