STATE OF U.P Vs. KAMAL JEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner - State of U.P. through Divisional Forest Officer (North), Lakhimpur Kheri, has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 03.03.1978 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Kheri and the order dated 15.07.1978 passed by opposite party no. 2 i.e. District Judge, Kheri.

(2.) The main controversy in the present writ petition relates to the title over Plot Nos. 15 and 21 on which the forest department of the State of U.P. agitates the matter on the ground that after Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the plots in question situated in village Baghauwa, Pargana Palia, Tehsil Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, which were earlier recorded as Jungle and Jhari on the date of vesting, were vested in the State and after that again declared as forest land, while opposite parties contends right over the plots on the ground that right of sirdari accrues in favour of Jagat Ram son of Chaudhary Ishwar Das (Jat) resident of Neara, Post Office and District Hoshiyarpur (East Punjab) and later on transferred the land in favour of respondents with all title and interest which were vested in him.

(3.) In brief on 19.03.1954 Government of U.P. issued a notification under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act including the plots in question i.e. 15-M and 21-M as reserve forest. One Jagat Ram was claiming to be tenure holder of plot nos. 15-M and 21-M, which are approximately more than 75 acres of land and he filed an objection before the Forest Settlement Officer under section 6 of the Indian Forest Act on the basis of a Patta/lease executed by the then Zamindar Shri Padam Bahadur Shah on 22.09.1951. It was contended by the objector Shri Jagat Ram that the entire area was under his cultivation and it could not be acquired for reserve forest. In reply to the objection raised under section 6 of the Indian Forest Act the forest department of the State of U.P. replied that entire land belongs to the State and has been declared as forest land vide Notification issued by the State Government. The Forest Settlement Officer allowed the objection which was challenged by the State/Forest Department under Section 17 of the Forest Act where appeal was allowed on 12.04.1958. Thereafter, a suit under Section 229-B was filed by Jagat Ram which was decided ex-parte by Judicial Officer-II, Kheri, vide order dated 03.05.1961. An application for correction of papers on the basis of order passed by the Judicial Officer was filed before Sub Divisional Officer which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.1965 and again an application was filed by the legal heirs of Jagat Ram after his death which was again dismissed vide order dated 16.11.1966 and matter went up to the Board of Revenue where it was dismissed summarily on 20.12.1966. Shri Madan Gopal and Shri Deo Prakash filed Writ Petition No. 486 of 1967 which was allowed vide order dated 12.01.1971 and aggrieved by the judgment and order, a Special Appeal No. 24 of 1971 was filed which was allowed vide order dated 19.11.1976 and the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge was set-aside. After the order of appeal decided by the Bench of this Court the matter was sent to the Forest Settlement Officer for issuing notification under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act but as per version narrated in the writ petition heirs of Jagat Ram filed an application/objection opposing the notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act on the ground that it is contrary to the order passed by the Judicial Officer. The Forest Settlement Officer (opposite party no. 3) by his order dated 03.03.1978 declined to issue notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act. Aggrieved by the order of the Forest Settlement Officer, State of U.P. filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.1978 and aggrieved by that order, this petition has been filed challenging the order of Forest Settlement Officer and District Judge on the ground that controversy relating to land in question has to be decided under the provisions of the Forest Act and it was finally decided by the competent court/authority but when the order reached to its finality, the respondents filed an application under Section 229B by misusing the process of law and thus the order impugned is without jurisdiction and is nullity in the eyes of law. It has further been argued that application of the private respondents for correction of papers regarding mutation in Khatauni by deleting the name of State Government/Forest Department relates to deciding the title or ownership and in the revenue records, the name of the Forest Department finds place and after notification under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, the objection filed by the person concerned has been heard and decided by the competent authority. Thus, the order of the Forest Settlement Officer declining to issue notification is unjustified and cannot be sustained in the circumstances of the case.