RAM SURAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The disputed property was notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, as the land reserved for forest. The petitioner filed objection which was decided by the Forest a uthorities against the petitioner by an order dated 24-8-1990, An-nexure-1 to the petition. An appeal was preferred under Section 17 of the Forest Act being Civil Appeal No. 3806 of 1990 by the petitioner which was allowed by an order dated 6th March, 1991, filed as Annexure-2 to the petition. Against the said judgment an application for review was also filed, being Review Application No. 43 of 1993. By an order dated 26th November, 1993 the said Revision application was rejected, filed as Annexure-3 to the petition. The forest department had moved to the Apex Court, whereupon on 4th October, 1993 an order was passed. It is alleged that the order dated 26th November, 1993 was passed on the basis of order dated 4th October, 1993. Thereafter the Forest department filed another Review Application being Special Review Application No. 77 of 1994 which was decided by an order dated 23-4-1994, filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is this order which is under challenge.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sri C. D. Yadav has urged only one point namely that no second review application is amintainable, once the review application is dispose of earlier. According to him after the appellate order was passed, the respon dents had filed an application for review, and the same was dismissed and the matter stands concluded. There cannot be any question of filing second review application on the selfsame cause of action.

(3.) NOW in the facts and circumstances of the present case the question is to be looked into from different point of view. Inasmuch as it is alleged by the respondents that the review was preferred on the basis of leave granted by the Apex Court. Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the Territory' of India. Here in this case it is alleged that the leave was granted to move such review. The said leave, as is apparent from the copy of the order dated 4-10-1993 passed in writ petition No. 1061 of 1982 between Banwashi Sewa Ashram v. State of U. P. and others, by the Apex Court. In the said order it was recorded that the Forest Department may bring those cases as to where on physical verification it appears that wrong orders have been passed, the same may be brought to the notice of Addi tional District Judge, who shall consider those cases in accordance with law viz: "as suggested by the Record Officer, we direct the closure of the Kaimoor Survey Agency with effect from 15th October, 1993. Two survey units instead of 5 units may keep on functioning till further orders to complete the residual work. These 2 units shall, from 15th October, 1993 on wards, function under the control of Collector, Sonbhadra. We direct the Revenue Secretary, Government of U. P. and the Collector, Sonbhadra to create a separate branch under the administrative control of Collector, Sonbhadra to look after the records which shall be surrendered as a result of the closure of the Kaimoor Survey Agency. The Collector shall secure the records. The Collector, Sonbhadra and the Revenue Secretary shall send a compliance report to this court by 15th November, 1993. The Collector, Sonbhadra shall further send the progress report regarding the functioning of the 2 units by the first week of December 1993. The five Additional District Judges who are hearing the appeals shall continue to function till further orders. The Revenue Secretary shall send a report to this court before November 30, 1993 stating the number of appeals pending on that date to be disposed of by the Additional District Judges. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, the Divisional Forest Officer, District Sonbhadra, has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that during the physi cal verification made by the Forest Department certain cases have come to light where wrong orders have been passed. He seeks directions from this court for the review of those cases. The Forest department may bring those cases to the notice of the Additional District Judges who shall consider those cases in accordance with law. "