MAHABIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned standing counsel for the Respondents. This writ petition was filed by five Petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 has died and has been substituted by his legal representative. Each Petitioner claimed that he was tenure holder of different agricultural plots since the time of Zamindari Abolition (some of the Petitioners claimed that prior to them their fathers were tenure holders). The plots in question were included in notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act in the year 1968 proposing to declare certain areas as reserve Forest. Petitioners filed objections under Section 6/9 of the Forest Act on 15.03.1985 claiming that they were not aware of the gazette notification of 1968 under Section 4 of the Forest Act. Each Petitioner claimed that he (or his father) was in possession with the consent of the Zamindar since before Zamindari abolition. However, no one's name was ever entered in the revenue record. Forest Settlement Officer (F.S.O.) allowed their objections on 24.03.1989 by accepting the receipts filed by the Petitioners alleged to have been issued by the Zamindar. For the said purpose F.S.O. placed reliance upon Section 90 of Evidence Act.

(2.) Against the orders passed by the Forest Settlement Officer appeals were filed before District Judge, Mirzapur. The copies of alleged receipts have also been filed as Annexure 9 to 13 to the writ petition. The receipts are for fasli years 1357, 1358 and 1359 i.e. from 1.7.1949 to 30.06.1952. The appeal against Petitioner No. 1 was numbered as Appeal No. 72 of 1989 State of U.P. (Forest Department) v. Mahavir and was allowed on 06.02.1991. Order of the F.S.O. dated 24.03.1989 was set aside and objection of Mahavir was rejected. The other appeals were numbered as 67 of 1989 against Dukhi, 65 of 1989 against Ramkishore, 80 of 1989 against Vishwanath and 77 of 1989 against Mohan. All the appeals were allowed for the same reasons on the same date by IV A.D.J. Mirzapur.

(3.) The lower appellate court under issue No. 1 held that no objector until the date of his evidence before F.S.O. had either filed the receipt or indicated the name of the zamindar or had filed the alleged patta. Each objecion only stated that Zamindar had executed patta in his favour. Alleged receipts were filed after conclusion of the evidence of the objectors before F.S.O. There was no mention of the receipt in the written objection or in the oral statement. The appellate court held that receipts were forged and manufactured for the purpose of the case.