REKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Smt. Rekha Singh and 16 others against the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner, Bahraich and the Divisional Forest Officer, Bahraich.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that they are the tenants of plots lying in villages Saran Kalan, Bhageria Sohni, Ponda and Niddhipurwa as specified in para 1 of the petition: that adjoining the land of the peti tioners there is forest area which has been declared by the State of Uttar Pradesh to be reserve forest under a notification of 12-9-1967. It is alleged that the Forest Depart ment illegally and wrongfully encroached upon and included a part of petitioners' land by fixing demarcation pillars, whereup on they applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer Nanpara for demarcation of forest land. The said application came up for disposal before the Additional Sub-Division Officer Nanpara who rejected the same, where after the petitioners filed an application before the Divisional Forest Officer for demarcation of the Forest land which was also rejected in March, 1971. Aggrieved by this petitioner No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 504 of 1971, petitioner No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 505 of 1971, petitioners Nos. 3 to 7 filed Writ Petition No. 506 of 1971, petitioners Nos. 8 to 11 filed Writ Petition No. 507 of 1971, petitioners Nos. 12 to 15 filed Writ Petition No. 509 of 1971, petitioner No. 16 fied Writ Petition No. 510 of 1971 and petitioner No. 17 filed Writ Petition No. 508 of 1971 in this Court. These Writ Petitions were heard to gether and decided by a common judgment. The petitions were allowed and a writ of mandamus issued commanding the State of Uttar Pradesh to get the land of the peti tioners demarcated and directing that if on demarcation it was discovered that any land of the petitioners had been encroached upon the same shall be released in their favour forthwith. Aggrieved by this order the State Government filed a special appeal and also applied for stay but the prayer for stay was rejected. The special appeal was however, admitted and is still pending. It was alleged that the State Government did not obey the mandamus issued in the said writ petitions and the petitioners moved for taking con tempt proceedings against it Upon a notice being issued to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Divisional Forest Officer submitted an apology. Thereafter in compliance with the order of the Single Judge in the said writ petitions demarcation of peti tioners' land in the said five villages was done by the Lekhpal and concluded on 3-12-1971. The Lekhpals reported to the Forest Depart ment after demarcation proceedings that the land of the petitioners had been encroached upon and included in forest. The forest Department was directed to remove their boundary pillars and to fix them in accord ance with the survey and demarcation car ried on by the lekhpals. After submission of the aforesaid reports by the Circle Lekhpals it is alleged that the Deputy Commissioner, Bahraich was taking steps to have changes made in the Khasras, Khataunis and maps of the villages which had been prepared during record operations and which had become final with the closure of those operations. It may be mentioned here that according to the petitioners the aforesaid villages were under record operations from, 1375 Fasli under Government Notification dated November 28, 1967 mentioned in para 10 of the peti tion and the said operations were finalised and closed under a notification dated August 2, 1971. All the disputes during the record operations, it is contended, were to be de cided by the Record Officer under Section 51 of the Land Revenue At in the manner prescribed in Section 41. The petitioners maintain that after close of the record operations the Khasras, Khataunis and the maps of these villages could not be correct ed by the Record Officer or by the Collector.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit sworn by Bachchu Lal Awasthi on behalf of opposite party No. 2 the defence raised is that copies of the maps of these villages do not tally with the originals which are in the office of the Board of Revenue and the maps in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner contain forgeries and as the Khasras and Khataunis of these villages are based on these forged maps and are inconsistent with the maps in the office of the Board of Revenue, they are incorrect and forged and the collector is empowered under the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act to make necessary corrections in the Khasras, Khataunis and maps of these villages. In the course of arguments learned Chief Standing Counsel Sri K. S. Verma placed reliance solely upon the provisions contained in Section 28 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act which is in these words: