JHARKHANDI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ANPARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is alleged that the land which were within forest though were in possession of the petitioners and their predecessor -in -interest but the same were not correctly recorded. The Forest Settlement Officer, Obra by his order dated 13.5.1991 had separated the said land from the proposal of reserving the same for forest. An appeal was preferred against the said order. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 4.12.1991, Annexure -3 to the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' right were recognised in the land in dispute. Some review applications were filed challenging the order dated 4.12.1991 by one Badkau, being Review petition No. 3023 of 1992. Similarly one Laxman had also filed Review application challenging the said order dated 4.12.1991, registered as Review petition No. 3022 of 1992. By an order dated 23.4.1994 the said Review petitions were dismissed. The State had also filed Review application. The same was decided on 28th May 1994, Annexure -6 to the petition. It is this order which has since been challenged by means of the present writ petition. Sri S.D. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the order dated 28th May 1994 passed on the Review application filed by the State on 13.11.1992, against the order dated 4.12.1991, on the ground that the State had no right to file Review application, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court delivered on 20.11.1986 in Writ petition No. 1061 of 1982, Annexure -1 to the petition. Secondly, he contends that the Forest Act does not provide for any review. He further contends that the plot being inside the river the same vests under Section 117 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, upon the Gaon Sabha. Therefore the same can not be included within forest and, as such the petitioners' right can not be affected. No other point with regard to the correctness of the finding by the Reviewing authority has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY this was the burning question, which went to Hon'ble Supreme Court by reason of the writ petition moved by Banwasi Sewa Ashram. After 1986 order was passed, another order was passed on the same writ petition on 4.10.1993 which is quoted below: - -

(3.) WHETHER there is any provision for review in the Forest Act or not, in view of the order dated 4.10.93 passed by the Apex Court the said question is no more to be agitated since the said order permitted review as is revealed from the order quoted above. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners also can not succeed, inasmuch as law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution.