HARDAYAL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notification under Sec tion 4 of the Indian Forest Act, for consti tuting certain land lying in village Dhaman, Tehsil Kalpi as reserved forest was issued in September 1954. Petitioner, Hardayal, claims that he is Sirdar of certain plots covered by the notification. According to him no proclamation as required by Sec tion 6 of the act was published in the vil lage. Accordingly, he and other tenure hol ders of the village were not aware of the proceedings taken under Indian Forest Act They came to know about these proceed ings towards the end of June, 1962, when some employees of the Forest Department began fixing pillars and demarcating land. The petitioner and other tenure-holders then filed objections, before the Forest Set tlement Officer, claiming interest in various plots, on 9th of July, 1962, before issue o a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. The Forest Settlement Officer accepted the claim made by the petitioner and directed that his sirdari plots be ex cluded from the reserved forest.

(2.) THE Divisional Forest Officer went up in appeal before the Commissioner 'Jhansi Division. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim. If at all, it was the Bhudan Samiti, which is said to have leased out the plots to the petitioner, which could make a claim under Section 4/6 of the Indian Forest Act. He also held that as the petitioner did not file his claim within three months, the limit prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, the claim was barred by time. In the result he allowed the appeal and rejected the claim made by the petitioner.

(3.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner questions the validity of the order made by the Dist rict Judge, dismissing his claim on the ground of limitation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned District Judge was labouring under a mis apprehension that Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act prescribes a period of limitation within which a claim under that section can be filed, and that this period cannot be ex tended unless an application containing a specific prayer for condoning the delay is moved and granted. He points out that while the proceedings were pending before the Forest Settlement Officer, no objection was taken by the Divisional Forest Officer that petitioner's claim was time barred. In the circumstances, it should be taken that the Forest Settlement Officer was satisfied that the petitioner had sufficient cause for not preferring his claim within the time men tioned in the proclamation. After the Forest Settlement Officer had entertained the claim and decided it on merits, it was not open to the Divisional Forest Officer to raise this objection for the first time before the appellate Authority. The learned District Judge also erred in dismissing the peti tioner's revision application on the ground that the claim was barred by time.