SUKH NANDAN Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE PIPRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Inspite of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 - Panna Lal. Notices were issued to him through registered post with A.D. on 1.11.2008 as per office report of the said date. However, he did not engage any counsel.

(2.) THE first order challenged through this writ petition was passed by Forest Settlement Officer (F.S.O.)/Deputy Collector, Renukoot, Mirzapur in case No. 338 Panna Lal v. Forest Department. THE land in dispute is comprised in plot No. 2845 area 5 bigha situate in village Ranhaur. THE land in dispute alongwith other lands was notified under Section-4 of Forest Act 1927. Panna Lal filed objections under Section-6 of the Act claiming that he was bhoomidhar of the land in dispute hence it must be excluded from the limits of the proposed forest. His specific case was that he had acquired title on the basis of possession. THE case was decided by F.S.O. On 31.3.1989. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the said judgment it is mentioned that the land in dispute was entered as jungle in the revenue records (khata No. 9). Panna Lal had claimed that he was in possession for 15 to 16 years. However, from perusal of the revenue record FSO found that his possession was only four years old. F.S.O. also noted that Panna Lal at one stage stated that his possession was 10-12 years old and at another stage he stated that possession was 15-16 years old hence his case was extremely doubtful. Accordingly, objections filed by Panna Lal were dismissed. Against the said order Panna Lal respondent No. 3 filed the appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 1385 of 1989. Additional District Jude, Pipri, Sonebhadra dismissed the appeal on 11.6.1991 holding that Panna Lal - appellant had stated that his possession was before 1385 fasli however, he could not prove that and as was mentioned in proforma-9, at the time of survey his possession was not found and land was found not capable of agriculture. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, it is clear that claims under Section 6 of Forest Act could be received only till 15.4.1987 by F.S.O. Petitioner did not make any claim within that time before F.S.O. In-fact petitioner did not file any claim before F.S.O. He therefore, cannot file application directly before the appellate Court in an appeal filed by some other person and that also after dismissal of the appeal.