SWAMI NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the validity of proceedings taken under the provisions of Chapter II of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act No. 16 of 1927)

(2.) BY a notification dated 19th May, 1964 published in the official gazette dated 5th June 1954 the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 4 of the Forest Act proposed to constitute certain land as reserved forest. Eight plots on which the petitioners claimed sirdari rights, lying in village Grainahi, were also included in the land mentioned in the schedule of the said notification. Thereupon the petitioners filed claims before the Forest Settlement Officer objecting to the inclusion of their sirdari plots in the reserved forest. The case of the petitioners was that they had taken the plots in dispute on lease from the former zamindars and had executed a patta and Iqrarnama for the purpose. They also alleged that they had given a large sum of money to the former zamindar as price of the trees standing on the land demised to them and thereafter cleared the land by cutting the trees and prepared it for agricultural operations by incurring a large amount as expense. The Forest Settlement Officer made a local inspection, took evidence and on a consideration of the entire material on record rejected the claim of the petitioners. Thereupon the petitioners filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Forest Act before the Collector, Deoria. The appeal eventually came up for hearing before Sri N.P. Pande, Additional Collector, Deoria. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners before Sri N.P. Pande to the effect that he as the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appeal under Section 17 of the Forest Act. Sri N.P. Pande considered the above said preliminary objection and rejected it. He held that as Additional Collector he had the same jurisdiction and power as the Collector of Deoria in so far as the hearing of appeals under the Forest Act was concerned. On merits Sri Pande affirmed the findings recorded by the Forest Settlement Officer. The result was that the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. If is these proceedings which have been impugned on this petition.

(3.) I will take up the question of jurisdiction as raised on behalf of the petitioners first. If on this question the answer is in favour of the petitioners then it would not be necessary to examine the validity of the other contentions raised in support of the petition on the merits of the case.