SHIVNATH Vs. A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions involve similar questions and challenges identical orders of the same date passed by Forest Settlement Officer and Additional District Judge. It is sufficient to note the facts of Writ Petition No. 51866 of 2004. Shiv Nath v. Additional District Judge, Mirzapur and others, for disposing all the writ petitions.

(2.) Heard Shri R. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing orders dated 29.9.2001 passed by respondent No. 2, Forest Settlement Officer rejecting the objection of the petitioner and the orders dated 7.10.2003 passed by Additional District Judge (Court No. 4), Mirzapur dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudicating the controversy raised in the writ petition are ; notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued on 26.8.1967 notifying various plots including the plots in question proposed as reserved forest. Notification under Section 6 was also issued in 1968 giving the details of plots proposed to be included in the reserved forest. Petitioner filed an objection under Section 6/9 of the Indian Forest Act in the year 1994 claiming bhumindhari right over land in dispute. Petitioner's case before the Forest Settlement Officer was that a lease has been executed by the Gaon Sabha on 22.12.1958 in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of which petitioner is in possession of land in dispute. It was stated in the application that petitioner has become bhumidhar and declaration in favour of the petitioner be made. The objection filed by the petitioner was contested by the Forest Department of the State. The respondent filed documentary evidence including the notification under Sections 4 and 6 and the relevant khataunis of the land in dispute. The petitioner examined himself apart from one Devi Prasad Pandey as his witness to prove the lease. Forest Settlement Officer after considering the evidence on the record recording finding that the lease of the petitioner has not been proved and cannot be accepted. The Forest Settlement Officer held that the lease is neither registered nor it has been attested by competent revenue official. It was further held that the lease is not included in the relevant register and there is no entry in the revenue records of the lease in question. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Forest Settlement Officer filed an appeal. Appellate authority also affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal. Shri R. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the orders raised following submissions : (1) that no notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 having yet been issued the land cannot be treated to be reserved forest. (2) That the petitioner is in possession of land in dispute in pursuance of the lease dated 22.12.1958 which lease was duly proved. (3) That petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Section 122B (4F) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and he cannot be evicted by the respondent.