R.B. Misra, J.

1. These two connected Special Appeals are directed against a common judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing two petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution. They arise out of proceedings under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the material facts bearing on the point in issue in the two special appeals are identical.

2. The Forest Settlement Officer issued notifications Under Sections 4 and 6 of the Indian Forest Act declaring the intention of the Government to constitute a large area in the District of Nainital as reserved forest. The land in dispute in the two appeals was included in the proposed reserved forest. The Appellants filed objection before the Forest Settlement Officer and claimed to be sirdars of the land in dispute. Their claim was accepted by the Forest Settlement Officer over some of the plots. The State Government filed appeals before the Commissioner against the order of the Forest Settlement Officer. The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner and the order of the Forest Settlement Officer was upheld. Thereupon the State Government went up in revision before the District Judge, who allowed the same and dismissed the claim of the Appellants. The Appellant then filed two writ petitions in this Court, which were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19th November, 1909 giving rise to these two special appeals.

3. One of the points taken by the Appellants before the Bench hearing the Special Appeals was that no revision lay against the order of the Commissioner and the order passed by the District Judge was thus without jurisdiction. In support of their stand the Appellants placed reliance on an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Pirthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sp. A. No. 931 of 1969 connected with Sp. As. Nos. 880, 928 and 930 of 1969 D/- 6th January, 1970. The Bench hearing the Special Appeals doubted the correctness of that decision and referred the question involved in the case for decision by a larger Bench. This is how these Special Appeals have come before us.

4. In order to appreciate the point involved in the two appeals it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

5. Section 4 of the Act enjoins the Forest Settlement Officer to issue a notification declaring the decision of the State Government to constitute a particular land a reserved forest. Section 6 directs the Forest Settlement Officer to publish a proclamation specifying the situation and limits of the proposed reserved forest. It also authorises him to invite objections from every person claiming any right in such land. Section 7 provides for an enquiry by the Forest Settlement Officer into the claim of persons. Section 9 contemplates the extinction of rights of persons not setting up their claim Under Section 6 Sections 11 and 12 deal with the adjudication of the claims by the Forest Settlement Officer. Section 15 stipulates arrangements to be made by the Forest Settlement Officer to ensure the exercise of the rights of the admitted claims of the claimants. Section 16 envisages the commutation of rights of the claimants in case it is not possible to make arrangement Under Section 15. Section 17 provides for appeals against the order of the Forest Settlement Officer passed Under Section 11, Section 12, Section 15 or Section 16. Section 18 gives the mode of presentation of appeals and their disposal. Sub-section (4) of Section 18 is important, and attaches finality to the order passed by the appellate authority subject only to revision by the State Government. Section 22 empowers the State Government to revise arrangements made Under Section 15 or Section 18.

6. A similar question about the maintainability of revision Under Section 18(4) of the Indian Forest Act came up for consideration in Raghunath Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1961 AWR 532. A Division Bench of this Court held in that case that Section 18(4) does not create a right to file revisions. The right to file a revision is conferred by Section 22. That right is, however, a limited one. It does not provide for a revision against an order disposing of the claims Under Section 11 and Section 12. It is confined only to revisions against arrangements made by the Forest Settlement Officer Under Section 15 or by the Commissioner in appeal.

7. Alter this decision the U.P. Legislature intervened and amended Sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Indian Forest Act by the Indian Forest (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1965 and also added a transitory provision to deal with the cases pending before the commencement of the said Act.

8. Section 16 of the Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1965, in so far as is material for our purposes, reads thus:

Section 16 (1): The jurisdiction and procedure relating to appeals arising out of any claim made before the commencement of this Act shall be governed by the provisions of Ss 17 and 18 of the principal Act as amended by this Act.

(2) Any appeal pending before the commencement of this Act before an appellate officer Under Section 17 of the principal Act as it stood before its amendment by this Act, shall be transferred by him to the District Judge having jurisdiction and shall be disposed of by such Judge Under Section 18 of the said Act as hereby amended.

* * *

(5) Any petition for revision presented to the State Government purporting to be made Under Sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the principal Act, as it stood before its amendment by this Act, at any time within five years before the commencement of this Act, shall, whether pending on the date of such commencement with the State Government or purporting to have been decided by it before such date under the said sub-section, be referred by the State Government to the Tribunal having jurisdiction and the Tribunal may, after giving to the parties an opportunity of being heard, confirm, set aside or modify the order under revision, or remand the case to the Forest Settlement Officer with such directions as it thinks fit:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to require the State Government to refer to the Tribunal any petition made by a Forest Officer which the State Government does not think fit to be pressed.

(6) Any party aggrieved by a decision of an appellate Officer given Under Section 18 of the principal Act any time within three months before the commencement of this Act, may, unless that party has already presented a petition for revision to the State Government purporting to be made Under Sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the principal Act as it stood before its amendment by this Act, prefer to the Tribunal, within three months from the date of such commencement, a petition for revision against the order, and the Tribunal may thereupon dispose of the petition as if it were referred to it Under Sub-section (5).

(7) The order passed by the Tribunal shall, subject to the provisions of Section 22 of the principal Act as hereby amended, be final.

9. Section 18 (4) of the Indian Forest Act has also been amended as under:

Section 18(4): The order passed of the appeal shall, subject to the provisions of Section 22, be final.

The amended Section 22 remains substantially as before, and it contemplates the filing of a revision only against the arrangement made Under Section 15 or against the appellate order Under Section 18.

10. A perusal of the amended Section 22 makes it quite clear that the State Government has been given power only to revise arrangements made Under Section 15 or on appeal Under Section 18. It has no power to revise the orders passed Under Sections 11 and 12. And Sub-section (4) of the amended Section 18 provides that the order passed on appeal Under Section 17 shall, subject to the provisions of Section 22, be final. Thus, on a perusal of Sections 18(4) and 22, there is not the slightest doubt that a revision would now lie only against arrangements made Under Section 15 or against the order on appeal Under Section 18 of the Act.

11. We are, however, concerned with the interpretation of Section 16(5) of the U.P. Amendment Act XXIII of 1965. In Pirthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Sp. A. No. 931 of 1969 D/ 6-1-1970) referred to above a Division Bench of this Court took the view that there is no indication in Section 16(5) of the Indian Forest (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1965 (U.P. Act XXIII of 1965) that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is wider than that of the State Government, and held that Section 16(5) did not empower the Tribunal to deal with a matter which was beyond the jurisdiction of the State Government, when the revision was filed before the State Government. With respect, this view does not appear to be in harmony with the subject, context and language of Sub-section (5) of Section 16.

12. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar : AIR 1955 SC 661 [LQ/SC/1954/175] at page 674 the Supreme Court adopted the rule of interpretation expounded in Heydons case. According to that rule, the function of a Judge is always to make such construction "as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy" and "to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico."

13. It appears that revisions used to be filed before the State Government Under Section 18(4) on the assumption that that enactment did create a right of revision. But this Court held to the contrary. The decision created a problem for the State. Revisions had been filed bona fide. They were pending. Many of them might have been filed by private individuals whose rights were seriously affected by the appellate order. To resolve this problem the Legislature enacted Section 16. By Sub-section (5) of Section 16, the legislature provided that a petition for revision presented to the State Government purporting to be made Under Sub-section (4) of the unamended Section 18 of the Indian Forest Act at any time within five years before the commencement of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965, whether pending on the date of the commencement of the 1965 Act with the State Government or purporting to have been decided by it before such date under the said sub-section shall be referred by the State Government to the Tribunal (i.e. the District Judge in the instant case) for disposal after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard. The provision to this sub-section authorises the State Government not to refer to the Tribunal any petition made by the Forest Officer which the State Government did not think fit to be pressed.

14. Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the U.P. Act XXIII of 1965 provides that a party aggrieved by a decision of an appellate officer given under the unamended Section 18 at any time within three months before the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1965, may, unless he has already presented a petition for revision to the State Government purporting to be made Under Sub-section (4) of the unamended Section 18, prefer to the Tribunal, within three months from the date of such commencement, a petition for revision against the order, Sub-section (6) also empowers the Tribunal to dispose of the petition as if it were referred to it Under Sub-section (5) of Section 16 of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965.

15. Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 16 of U.P. Act XXIII of 1955 clearly provide that revision purporting to have been filed under the unamended Section 18(4), whether pending or purported to have been disposed of by the State Government, should be referred to the District Judge for disposal. Sub-section (6) even authorises an aggrieved party to file, within three months of the commencement of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965, a revision against an appellate order given under the unamended Section 18 of the Forest Act any time within three months before the commencement of the Amendment Act. Had not the legislature decided that such a revision should be decided on merits it would not have provided for the filing of it Under Sub-section (6) only to le dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. It would not have enacted a meaningless ceremonial. On a conjoint reading of the two Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 16, there is no doubt that the revision applications in the present case were maintainable as they purported to have been filed Under Sub-section (4) of the unamended Section 18 of the Indian Forest Act.

16. The same conclusion is warranted even by the (language of Sub-section (5) of Section 16 of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965. The expressions "purporting to be made under Section 18(4) of the Principal Act" and "purporting to have been decided under the said sub-section" indicate that no revision lay yet it had been presented. The expression "purport" is a familiar one. In Azimunnisa v. Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property : AIR 1961 SC 365 [LQ/SC/1960/244] the Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 8(2-A) of Act I of I960, had to construe the word "purport". In paragraph 20 of the judgment the Supreme Court observed:

The word purport has many shades of meaning. It means fictitious, what appears on the face of an instrument, the apparent and not the legal import and therefore any Act which purports to be done in exercise of a power is to be deemed to be done within that power notwithstanding that the power is not exerciseable; Daker v. Angerstein 3 Chancery Division 600 at page 603. Purporting is, therefore, indicative of what appears on the face of it or is apparent even though in law it may not be so. This means that at the time when the Act purported to vest the property in dispute in the Custodian even though the power was not exercisable, Section 8(2-A) by giving a retrospective effect to Section 8(2) of the Act makes the vesting as if it was vesting Under Section 8(2) of the Act and, therefore, the attack on the ground of invalidity cannot be sustained.

The word "purporting" used in Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 16 of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965 clearly indicates that although a revision was not maintainable yet it was filed by virtue of right deemed to have been granted by Section 18 (4) of the unamended Act. On an analysis of the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act, both prior to its amendment in 1965 and subsequent thereto, there is no escape from the conclusion that a revision purporting to have been filed Under Section 18(4) of the unamended Act, if pending, would be disposed of by the District Judge, and if not so pending, it could be filed within the period contemplated by Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the Amendment Act of 1965 and disposed of by the District Judge as if it had been referred to him Under Sub-section (5) of Section 16.

17. The Division Bench in Pirthis case (supra) overlooked Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965. Sub-section (6) dissipates vagueness, if any, in Sub-section (5) and clarifies its meaning.

18. Sri V.N. Khare referred us to an unreported decision of brother Satish Chandra, in Sant Bux Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh CMW No. 1705 of 1967 D/-5-4-1968. But this case made only a passing reference to Sub-section (61 of Section 16 of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965 and did not deal with it. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Lokur, J. in State of Uttar Pradesh v. District Judge CMW No. 3408 of 1969. But it was based on Sections 17 and 18 of the unamended Act and is of no help in the present case.

19. We are, therefore, unable to share the view taken by the Division Bench in Pirthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sp. A. No. 931 of 1969 D/- 6-1-1970 and hold that the two revisions involved in the present appeals which were filed by the State Government Under Section 18(4) are maintainable Under Section 16(5) of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965. The two Special Appeals will now be sent back to the Bench concerned for disposal.