DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTH, KHERI FOREST DIVISION Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, SHAHJAHANPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria camp Shahjahanpur dated 7-9-1974 whereby the revision petitions filed by the contesting parties were decided.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details. there are a number of khatas namely 8, 11, 12 and 13 in respect of which the petitioner had claimed right on the ground that the disputed land is a reserved forest, whereas the contesting opposite parties have claimed bhumidhari and sirdari rights in the disputed land. It is not disputed before me that the disputed land forms part of old plot No. 4. The aforesaid plot No. 4 measures about 300 acres. The contesting opposite parties were claiming about 150 acres land as their bhumidhari due to purchase from the tenure-holders of that area, and the contesting opposite parties were claiming about 150 acres land on the basis of their adverse and continuous possession. 2A. The Consolidation Officer through his judgment dated 23-2-1972 did not accept the claim of the contesting opposite parties and gave judgment for the Forest Department. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Consolidation Officer the contesting opposite parties had preferred appeals and the judgment of the Consolidation Officer was modified as is evident from Annexure 5 attached to the writ petition. Thereafter both the parties preferred revision petitions which were decided through the impugned judgment. The petitioner has come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the disputed land was held as the property of the petitioner under the provisions of Indian Forests Act, hence the provisions of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings are inapplicable. Secondly he has contended before me that the appellate authority and the revisional court have patently erred in recognising the claim of the contesting opposite parties on the basis of adverse possession. Thirdly he has contended that the contesting opposite parties did not prefer their claim under the provisions of Indian Forests Act. Their right became extinguished under Sec. 9 of the aforesaid Act. Fourthly he has contended that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has manifestly erred in ignoring the material evidence adduced by the petitioner and on this ground the learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that the impugned judgment should be quashed.