MANKA NANI Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the orders as contained in annexures 2 to 5 to the petition. These orders have been passed by the Forest Settlement Officer (Respondent No. 5), the District Division (respondent No. 4), the Commissioner, Tirhut Division (respondent No. 3) and the Member Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) respectively. The effect of these orders is to reject the petitioner's claims for release of some lands from the notification purported to have been issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for compensation for depriving the petitioner from her possession over 60 bighas of land out of the 70 bighas taken in settlement by her in the District of Champaran.

(2.) The short facts, relevant for disposal of this application, are these:

(3.) Mr. S.C. Mukherjee learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that respondents No. 2 to 5 had clearly committed an error of law in holding that the order of Collector under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was not entitled to any weight. It was next urged that in any event, the crucial date of point of time when the land has to be held to be either waste or forest land is the date of the notification under Section 29 of the Act and not the date of the passing of the order.