# Daya Shankar & Ors v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, District Kheri & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 278
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 388 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/daya-shankar-ors-v-deputy-director-of-consolidation-kheri-district-kheri-ors-50455
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1961-Section 27(3) -
Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 4 & 20 - U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954Section 9-A(2)-Lease-Land declared as
suplus under the Act of 1960 was allotted
by execution of lease deed by S.D.O.-After
issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act,
1927 the land in question vests in the
Forest Department and no one can claim
any right or title on the basis of any
subsequent patta-Further, as per Section
27(3) of the Act, 1960 lease may be
granted only by Collector, and S.D.O. was
not competent authority to grant leaseClaim of petitioners to the land on the
6 All. Daya Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, District Kheri & Ors.
279
basis of lease, not sustainable-The law is
settled on the point that if any order is
passed by the incompetent authority, de
horse the statutory prescriptions, that
order would be nullity in the eyes of law
and would be void ab initio-Therefore, on
the strength of illegal and void order no
claim of petitioners in respect of the land
in question may be considered.(Para 2 to
40)

The writ petitions are dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,981 of 46,869. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39981 for what follows._

278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii)
Haryana
Financial
Corporation
and
others
Vs.
Kailash
Chandra Ahuja {MANU/SC/7804/2008}.

20. So far as the judgment relied on by
the learned Standing Counsel in the case of
Vijay S. Sathaye (supra) is concerned, in
that case, the petitioner has voluntarily
abandoned the services of the respondent.
Here is not such case. Here the petitioner
has requested for joining in the year 1996,
hence,
on
facts,
the
judgment
is
distinguished.

21. So far as the judgment of North
Eastern Karnataka R.T. Corporation (supra)
is concerned, the Supreme Court was
dealing with whether the punishment of
dismissal from service is disproportionate
or not. Here is not such case.

22. So far as the judgment in a case of
Haryana Financial Corporation (supra) is
concerned, the oral enquiry during course
of enquiry was not in question before the
Supreme Court, only non-supply of enquiry
report by the enquiry officer to the
delinquent
employee
was
under
consideration where employee had to show
prejudice. Here is not such case. Here is the
case where no oral enquiry at all has been
conducted by the enquiry officer, hence,
this judgment is also distinguishable.

23. In view of the settled position of
law and undisputed facts that no oral
enquiry has been conducted by the enquiry
officer and no date, time and place for oral
enquiry was provided, charges and the
documents relied on the enquiry officer
have not been proved by examining or
cross-examining the witnesses, hence, in
view of the settled preposition of law, the
impugned order contained in Annexure No.
1 is set aside.

24. The matter is remanded to the
Disciplinary Authority directing him to
conduct a de novo enquiry from the stage
of supplying of charge sheet within a
period of three months from the date of
receiving of certified copy of this order. No
order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 278
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ B No. 388 of 2023
&
Writ B No. 419 of 2023

Daya Shankar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri,
District Kheri & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Parmatma Prasad
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey

A. Civil Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1961-Section 27(3) -
Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 4 & 20 - U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954Section 9-A(2)-Lease-Land declared as
suplus under the Act of 1960 was allotted
by execution of lease deed by S.D.O.-After
issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act,
1927 the land in question vests in the
Forest Department and no one can claim
any right or title on the basis of any
subsequent patta-Further, as per Section
27(3) of the Act, 1960 lease may be
granted only by Collector, and S.D.O. was
not competent authority to grant leaseClaim of petitioners to the land on the
6 All. Daya Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, District Kheri & Ors.
279
basis of lease, not sustainable-The law is
settled on the point that if any order is
passed by the incompetent authority, de
horse the statutory prescriptions, that
order would be nullity in the eyes of law
and would be void ab initio-Therefore, on
the strength of illegal and void order no
claim of petitioners in respect of the land
in question may be considered.(Para 2 to
40)

The writ petitions are dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. St. of U.P. Vs DDC & ors. (1996) 5 SCC 194

2. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag
Vs Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) thru Lrs & ors.
(2021) AIR SC 4739

3. St. of U.P. Vs Kamal Jeet Singh (2017) 9 ADJ
768

4. St. of U.P. Vs DDC & ors. (1996) 5 SSC 194

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri P.K. Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra
Kumar Singh, learned C.S.C.-II and Sri
Upendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents and Sri Dilip
Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 6 / Gaon Sabha.

2. Since the issue in both the writ
petitions is identical, therefore, with the
consent of parties both the writ petitions are
being decided by a common judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the State has
provided the detailed instructions enclosing
therewith the orders of this Court passed in
the issue in question as well as copy of
approval dated 2.7.1980 of Sub-Divisional
Officer, Nighasan whereby the lease has
been granted in favour of 58 persons and
other relevant correspondences / orders,
same are taken on record.

4. Learned State counsel has also
produced the original records to show that
the instructions so provided to the Court
have been taken from those original
records.

5. In the first writ petition, the
petitioners have prayed following relief :

"(i) A writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari for quashing the
impugned
orders
dated
14.02.2023,
27.09.2017, 16.07.2016 modified order
21.07.2016 and 31.12.1985 are being
annexed as Annexure No.01, 02, 03 & 04,
to this writ petition.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
Mandamus
thereby
commanding /directing the opposite party
No.04 and 05 not interfering in peaceful
possession of the petitioner over the land in
question."

6. In the second writ petition, the
petitioners have prayed following relief :

"(1) A writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari for quashing the
impugned
orders
dated
14.02.2023,
27.09.2017. 16.07.2016 modified order
21.07.2016 and 31.12.1985 are being
annexed as Annexure No.01, 02, 03 & 04,
to this writ petition.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in
the
nature
of
Mandamus
thereby
commanding /directing the opposite party
No.04 and 05 not interfering in peaceful
possession of the petitioner over the land in
question.
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. It has been submitted that disputed
gatas were recorded before the Abolition of
Zamindari by the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act in
the name of the Rani Bhuwan Kumari w/o
Raja Pratap Vikram Shah, resident of
Singhai who was the Zamindar of Plot No.
1Sa and 23Sa along with another several
other plots situated in Village Khairatia,
Pargana- Khairigarh, Tehsil- Nighasan,
District Kheri. After the Abolition of
Zamindari the aforesaid plots comprised
the holdings of Rani Bhuwan Kumari and
she became the Bhumidhar of the plots
referred to above.

8. On the enforcement of U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act,
1960 proceedings were initiated against
Rani Bhuwan Kumari. The Prescribed
Authority under the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960
declared 423.39 acres of land as surplus
which included 379.10 acres of land of land
of plot No. 1- Sa and 23Sa along with other
Gata on 05.12.1968.

9. After the land was declared surplus
an endorsement to that effect was made in
the Khetauni for the year 1376-F to 1378-
F,
thereafter
plots
were
taken
into
possession by the state of U.P.

10. A
proposed
notification
no.
1734/14-43-54 total area 2555 acre under
Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act was
published 29.03.1954 along with the
disputed Gatas.

11. Thereafter the District authority of
Lakhimpur executed the lease of plot No.
1- Sa and 23Sa along with the another plots
area 3 acres to each in favor of the
petitioners of the aforesaid under the
Government Grant Act on 2.07.1980.

12. After execution of the lease deed
of the respective plots the petitioners were
put in possession. The leases were executed
on 2 July, 1980, petitioners and others are
the permanent leases by the authority
concerned in exercise of the powers under
section 27(3) of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960. And on
the basis of the leases the name of the
petitioners was entered in the respective
Khetauni of the village Khairatia.

13.
The
Forest
authorities
/
respondents allege that the Section 20 of
the Forest Act was published on 11.04.1984
by
the
no.
1655/14-2-20(39)-81
in
pursuance of notification no. 1737/14-B53-54, dated 29.03.1954 the land in
question with another land declared the
forest reserve land from date of 15.06.1984
with the approvals of Hon'ble Governor.

14.
Forest
authorities
filed
an
objection before the Consolidation Officer
Lakhimpur Kheri on 02.12.1985 claiming
that Plot No. 1- Sa area 3 acres and 23Sa
which is in possession of the petitioners is
proposed to be declare Forest and a
notification with respect to the aforesaid
land is send for publication in the Gazette.
This objection was registered as case no.
184 to 276 under section 9-A (2) of the
Consolidation of Holdings Act.

15.
Consolidation
officer
has
allegedly illegally expunged the name of
the lease holders and his possessions were
declared illegal in case no. 184 to 276
under section 9A(2) of the U.P. C. H Act
on order dated 31.12.1985. In aforesaid
case fact is admitted that the lease holders
are in possession and his names are
recorded
as
Bhumidhar
with
non
transferable rights.
6 All. Daya Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, District Kheri & Ors.
281

16. The notification issued under
section 20 of the Forest Act 1927, dated
11.04.1984 was challenged by the Babu Lal
and 51 others lease holders of the state of
U.P., titled as writ petition no. 1771 of 1987
Babu Lal and others versus State of U.P.
and another, the aforesaid writ petition was
dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on order
dated 17.05.2005, writ petition no. 5690 of
2000 filed by the Dayashankar and 9
another's by which they were challenged
the notification dated 11.04.1984 under
section 20 of the Forrest Act for its
quashing same was dismissed by this
Hon'ble court on order dated 21.11.2000,
writ petition no. 63 of 2001 M/B
Ramnageena and 9 others versus State of
U.P. and another, by which they were
challenged
the
notification
dated
11.04.1984 under section 20 of the Forrest
Act for its quashing same was dismissed by
this
Hon'ble
court
on
order
dated
19.09.2007.

17. Against the order dated 31.12.1985
appeal nos 1576 to 1581 of 1992 1993
under section 11(1) of UP. CH. Act filed by
the Lease holders, all appeals allowed
except in respect of Gata no. 23 and matter
was remanded to the trial court on order
dated 24.06.1993 by the S.O.C. Kheri

18. In pursuance of remand order
matter
was
again
heard
by
the
Consolidation Officer, written arguments
were filed by the petitioners in matter
before the trial court, Consolidation Officer
had again confirmed the ex parte order
dated 31.12.1985 which was already set
aside in appeal and directed the land in
question will be recorded as forest Land
without considering the case of the
petitioners.
Further,
the
order
dated
16.07.2016 was amended vide order dated
21.7.2016.

19. Against the order dated 16.07.2016
passed by the opposite party no. 3, total 71
appeals preferred, all appeals consolidated,
appeal no. 558/2016 was made leading file,
all appeals was dismissed by arbitrary
manner without considering the case of the
petitioners and evidence available on the
face of records filed by the petitioners his
vide illegal order dated 27.09.2017.

20. Being aggrieved of the orders
dated 27.09.2017 and 16.07.2016 revision
was preferred by the petitioners before the
opposite party no. 1 on different dates.

21. Aforesaid
all
revisions
was
illegally dismissed by the opposite party
no.
1
by
arbitrary
manner
without
considering the case of the petitioners and
evidence available on the face of records
filed by the petitioners his vide illegal order
dated 14.02.2023.

22. Per contra, at the very outset,
learned counsel for the State has stated
that in the issue in question there is a
concurrent finding of fact, on a subject
matter,
of
Consolidation
Officer,
Settlement Officer, Consolidation and
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Lakhimpur Kheri, therefore in view of the
settled proposition of law of the Apex Curt
in catena of cases, the interference in the
aforesaid concurrent findings may not be
required
under Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

23. In the present case the notification
u/s 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (herein
after referred to as Act, 1927) bearing
Gazette Notification No. 1737/14 dated
29.3.1954 for the proposed reserving of
2555 Acre land for the Forest area. Section
4 of the Act, 1927 is being reproduced
herein below :
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"4.
Notification
by
[State
Government). (1) Whenever it has been
decided to constitute any land a reserved
forest, the [State Government] shall issue a
notification in the [Official Gazette]- (a)
declaring that it has been decided to
constitute such land a reserved forest;

(b) specifying, as nearly as
possible, the situation and limits of such
land; and

(c)
appointing
an
officer
(hereinafter called "the Forest Settlement-
officer") to inquire into and determine the
existence, nature and extent of any rights
alleged to exist in favour of any person in
or over any land comprised within such
limits or in or over any forest- produce, and
to deal with the same as provided in this
Chapter.

Explanation. For the purpose of
clause (b), it shall be sufficient to describe
the limits of the forest by roads, rivers,
ridges or other well-known or readily
intelligible boundaries.

(2) The officer appointed under
clause
(c)
of
sub-section
(1)
shall
ordinarily be a person not holding any
forest-office
except
that
of
Forest
Settlement-officer.

(3) Nothing in this section shall
prevent the [State Government] from
appointing any number of officers not
exceeding three, not more than one of
whom shall be a person holding any forestoffice except as aforesaid, to perform the
duties of a Forest Settlement-officer under
this Act.

24. For the disposal of the present
issue it would be necessary to reproduce
section 5,20 and 23 of the Forest Act, 1927:

"5. Bar of accrual of forestrights.-After the issue of a notification
tinder section 4, no right shall be acquired
in or over the land comprised in such
notification, except by succession or under
a grant or contract in writing made or
entered into by or on behalf of the
[Government] or some person in whom
such right was vested when the notification
was issued; and no fresh clearings for
cultivation or for any other purpose shall
be made in such land except in accordance
with such rules as may be made by the
2[State Government] in this behalf.

20. 20. Notification declaring
forest reserved. (1) When the following
events have occurred, namely:-

(a) the period fixed under section
6 for preferring claims have elapsed and all
claims (if any) made under that section or
section 9 have been disposed of by the
Forest Settlement-officer; (b) if any such
claims have been made, the period limited
by section 17 for appealing from the orders
passed on such claims has elapsed, and all
appeals (if any) presented within such
period have been disposed of by the
appellate officer or Court; and

(c) all lands (if any) to be
included in the proposed forest, which the
Forest Settlement-officer has, under section
11, elected to acquire under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), have
become vested in the Government under
section
16 of
that Act,
the
[State
Government) shall publish a notification in
the [Official Gazette), specifying definitely,
according to boundary-marks erected or
otherwise, the limits of the forest which is
to be reserved, and declaring the same to
be reserved from a date fixed by the
notification.

(2) From the date so fixed such
forest shall be deemed to be a reserved
forest.
6 All. Daya Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, District Kheri & Ors.
283

23. No right acquired over
reserved forest, except as here provided.-
No right of any description shall be
acquired in or over a reserved forest except
by succession or under a grant or contract
in writing made by or on behalf of the
[Government] or some person in whom
such right was vested when the notification
under section 20 was issued."

25. As per instructions so provided by
the State respondents it is clear that the
claim in respect of the similar and identical
parties has been rejected by the Forest
Settlement Officer, Nighasan and those
orders
were
challenged
before
the
Appellate Authority and those appeals were
rejected by the Appellate Authority. Not
only the above some similarly and
identically placed persons have filed writ
petition before this Court which has been
rejected. Thereafter, the special appeal was
filed which has also been rejected. One writ
petition bearing Writ Petition No. 192 of
1959 was filed under the title of Dr.
Gurdeep Singh and another vs. The
Divisional Forest Officer, North Kheri
Division, Kheri and others which was
rejected
vide order
dated
18.5.1964.
Against the order dated 18.5.1964 the
Special Appeal No. 118/1964 : Dr. Gurdeep
Singh vs. The Divisional Forest Officer,
North Kheri Division, Kheri and others was
filed and dismissed by this Court vide order
dated 19.10.1966. Not only the above the
declaratory suit u/s 229 B of U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Act has been filed by Dr. Gurdeep
Singh and his wife which was finally
decided
on
30.11.1966
whereby
the
aforesaid suit was dismissed with costs.
The aforesaid Gurdeep Singh again filed
Writ Petition No. 931/1975 which was
rejected by this Court vide order dated
8.3.1979. One more person has filed Writ
Petition No. 2380 of 1998(M/B) (Surjeet
Singh and others vs. State of U.P. & others)
which has also been dismissed vide
judgment and order dated 6.8.1998.

26. For the issue in question relating to
the land in question one Writ Petition No.
1771 of 1987 has been filed under the title
Babulal and others vs. State of U.P. &
others which came to be dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 17.5.2005. For the
convenience the order dated 17.5.2005 is
being reproduced herein below :

"By way of this petition the
petitioners seek a direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the Notification dated
11 April, 1984 issued in exercise of power
under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act
and further direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents not to
Interfere in the possession of the petitioners
over the land and the area allotted to them
with respect to the plot nos 1-Sa and 23-Sa
of village Khairatia as shown in Annexure
2 to the petition.

The case of the petitioners is that
the land in question belonged to Rani
Bhuwan Kumari W/o Raja Pratap Vikram
Shah and the same was declared surplus by
the Collector in exercise of power under
Section 27() of U.P, Imposition of Coiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960. Subsequently
the land in question was allotted to the
petitioners and since then they ar in
possession over the land in dispute. It has
further boon submitted that the aforesaid
land is entered into the revenue records in
the name of the petitioners and thus the
aforesaid land does not belong to the forest
department. It is, therefore, prayed that the
possession of the petitioners so as the land
in dispute be not disturbed.

The petition has been contested
amongst others on the ground that Rani
Bhuwan Kumari W/o Raja Pratap Vikram
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shah has no rights in the disputed plots
because after issuing notification under
Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act on
29.3.1954, she filed an objection under
Section 6/9 of Indian Forest Act before the
Forest Settlement Officer, Nighasan Kheri
which was rejected on 30.9.1958, a copy of
which has been annexed as Annexure CA-1
to the counter affidavit. Against that order
Rani Bhuwan Kumari filed an appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner, Kheri,
which was also dismissed on 30.4.1959, a
certified copy of the order is annexed as
Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit.
Thus all the rights of Rani Bhuwan Kumari
extinguished and the judgment of the Forest
Settlement Officer became final. It has
further been pleaded that no surplus land
was declared and the prescribed authority,
Nighasan passed the order on 30.5.1964 in
case No.243 under Section 14(3) of CH
Act. The disputed plots are not held by Rani
Bhuwan Kumari Devi as such those plots
are excluded from the surplus area.
Certified copy of the said order is being
annexed as Annexure No.CA-3 to the
counter affidavit. It has further been
pleaded that the plots in dispute are
excluded from the surplus area and no
question of more plots being declared as
surplus of Smt. Rajrani and the land in
dispute belongs to reserved forest and
disputed plots are excluded from ceiling
proceedings and the consolidation courts
also
decided
the
case
against
the
petitioners by orders dated 26.3.1984 and
17.1.1985 passed by Consolidation Officer,
Nighasan and certified copy of the order
dated 18.7.1986 passed by the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation being annexed as
Annexures CA-S and CA-6 to the counter
affidavit. has further been pleaded that the
petitioners have filed objections and
contested the case before the Consolidation
Courts. It has been pleaded that Dr.
Gurdeep Singh filed objection under
Section 14(3) of U.P Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act and Gurdeep Singh
aforesaid also filed a writ petition bearing
No.931 of 1976, which was dismissed by
this Court vide order dated 8.3.1979, a
copy of which has been annexed as
Annexure No.CA-7 to the counter affidavit.

We have heard the learned
counsel for the parties at length and have
gone through the record and find that the
land in dispute has already been declared
as forest land after issuing notification
under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act on
29.3.1954.
After
the
issue
of
said
notification in the year 1954 the petitioners
and other persons contested the matter
before the Forest Settlement Officer and all
the objections of the petitioners and other
persons were dismissed and the land in
question was declared as reserved forest.
Therefore, subsequent proceedings taken
and drawn under the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings and other
proceedings have no meaning and such
proceedings are not binding and have no
legal effect. -

The petition has no force and is
dismissed."

27. In the aforesaid judgment the
Division Bench of this Court has not only
upheld the orders being passed by the
competent consolidation authorities but
also clarified the effect under the Act, 1960.
The Division Bench has categorically
observed that the subsequent proceedings
taken and drawn under the U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1960 (
herein after referred to as Act, 1960) and
other proceedings have no meaning and
such proceedings are not binding and have
no legal effect. As per learned counsel for
the State the aforesaid order has not been
challenged and that order has attained
6 All. Daya Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, District Kheri & Ors.
285
finality, therefore, so far as the claim of the
petitioners that they are the lessee of the
State Government being patta holder of
surplus land in the light of Act, 1960 would
not make them entitled to have possession
on such land.

28. Learned counsel for the State has
submitted that the patta in question was
approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Nighasan on 2.7.1980 as list of 58 patta
holders have been enclosed with the
enclosures which clearly shows that the
approval was grated by the S.D.O.
concerned on 2.7.1980. Learned State
Counsel has referred section 27 of the Act,
1960, which reads as under :

"27. Settlement of surplus land. -
(1) The State Government shall settle out of
the surplus land in a village in which no
land is available for community purposes
or in which the land as available is less
than 15 acres with the [Gaon Sabha] of
that village so however that the total land
in the village available for community
purposes after such settlement does not
exceed 15 acres. The land so settled with
the [Gaon Sabha] shall be used for
planting trees, growing fodder or for such
other community purposes, as may be
prescribed.

[(2) The State Government may
either settle any surplus land in accordance
with sub-section (1) sub-section (3) or use
or permit its use in accordance with Section
25 or manage or otherwise deal with it in
such manner as it thinks fit.]

[(3) Any remaining surplus land
shall be settled by the Collector in
accordance with the order of preference
and
subject
to
the
limits,
specified
respectively in[sub-sections (1) and (3)]of
Section
198
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950.

[(4) The Commissioner may of
his own motion and shall, on the
application of any aggrieved person,
enquire into such settlement and if he is
satisfied that the settlement is irregular he
may after notice to the person in whose
favour such settlement is made to show
cause -Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 shall mutatis
mutandis apply in relation to the such
vesting.

(i) cancel the settlement and the
lease,
if
any
and
thereupon,
notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law or in any instrument, the rights,
title and interest of the person in whose
favour such settlement was made or lease
executed or any person claiming through
him in such land shall cease, and such land
shall revert to the State Government; and

(ii) direct that every person
holding or retaining possession thereof may
be evicted, and may for that purpose use or
cause to be used such force as may be
necessary.]

(5) Every order passed by the
Commissioner under sub-section (4) shall
be final.

(6) The Commissioner acting of
his own motion under sub-section (4) may
issue notice, and an application under that
sub-section may be made, -

[(a) in the case of any settlement
made or lease granted before November 10,
1980, before the expiry of a period of
[seven years]

[(b) in the case of any settlement
made or lease granted on from the said
date, and or after the said date, before the
expiry of a period of five years from the
date of such settlement or lease] or up to
November 10, 1987, whichever be later].
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

[(6A) Where any surplus land has
been settled by the Collector under subsection (3), and any person other than the
person in whose favour such settlement was
made is in occupation of such land in
contravention of the provisions of this Act,
the Collector may, of his own motion and
shall on the application of the person in
whose favour such settlement was made,
put him in possession of such land and may
for that purpose use or cause to be used
such force as he considers necessary.

(6B) Where any person, after
being evicted under this section, reoccupies
the land or any part thereof without lawful
authority, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to two years but which shall not be less
than three months and also with fine which
may extend to three thousand rupees :

Provided
that
the
Court
convicting the accused may, while passing
the sentence, direct that the whole or such
portion of the fine that may be recovered as
the Court considers proper, be paid to the
person in whose favour such settlement was
made as damages for use and occupation.

(6C) Where in any proceeding
under sub-section (6-B), the Court, at any
stage after cognizance of the case has been
taken, is satisfied by affidavit or otherwise -

(a) that the accused is in
occupation of the land to which such
proceeding relates, in contravention of the
provisions of the Act; and

(b) that the person in whose
favour such settlement was made is entitled
to the possession of such land;

the Court may summarily evict
the accused from such land pending the
final determination of the case and may put
the person in whose favour such settlement
was made in possession of such land.

(6D)
Where
in
any
such
proceeding, the accused is convicted the
interim order passed under sub-section (6C) shall be confirmed by the Court.

(6E)
Where
in
any
such
proceeding, the accused is acquitted or
discharged and the Court is satisfied that
the person so acquitted or discharged is
entitled to be put back in possession over
such land, the Court shall, on the
application of such person, direct that
delivery of possession be made to him.

(6F) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable
under sub-section (6-B) shall be cognizable
and non-bailable and may be tried
summarily.

(6G) For the purpose of speedy
trial of offences under this section, the
State Government may, in consultation with
the High Court, by notification, constitute,
special Courts consisting of an officer not
below
the
rank
of
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, which shall, subject to the
provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, exercise in relation to
such offences the powers of a Judicial
Magistrate of the first class.]

(7) The State Government may,
[by a general or special order to be
published in the manner prescribed],
declare that as from a date to be specified
in this behalf, all surplus land situate in a
circle which could not be settled under the
provisions of this Act, shall vest in the
Gaon Sabha concerned, and the provisions
of Section 117 of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 shall mutatis mutandis apply in
relation to the such vesting."

29. In the light of aforesaid provision
of law, more particularly, under section 27
(3) of the Act, 1960 the approval of patta
may be granted only by the Collector,
therefore, the S.D.O., Nighasan was not the
6 All. Daya Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, District Kheri & Ors.
287
competent authority to grant approval of
patta. Hence, the order dated 2.7.1980
granting approval to the patta to the
petitioner is without jurisdiction, so non-est
in the eyes of law.

30. Learned State Counsel has referred
a decision of Apex Court in re: (State of
U.P. vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and
others) (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 194
referring para 9 and 10 which reads as
under :

"9. The crucial question for
consideration, however, is whether the
consolidation
authorities
have
the
jurisdiction to go behind the notification
under Section 20 of the Act and deal with
the land which has been declared and
notified as a reserve forest under the Act. It
is necessary, therefore, to examine the
scheme of Chapter II of the Act. Section 3
provides that the State Government may
constitute any forest land or wasteland
which is the property of the Government or
over which the Government has proprietary
rights, or to the whole or any part of the
forest produce of which the Government is
entitled, a reserved forest. Section 4
provides for the issue of a notification
declaring the intention of the Government
to constitute a reserved forest. Section 5
bars accrual of forest rights in the area
covered by the notification under Section 4
after the issue of the notification. Section 6,
inter alia, gives power to the Forest
Settlement Officer to issue a proclamation
fixing a period of not less than three
months from the date of such proclamation
and requiring every person claiming any
right mentioned in Section 4 or Section 5
within such period, either to present to the
Forest Scelement Officer a written notice
specifying or to appear before him, and a
state the nature of such right and the
amount
and
particulars
of
the
compensation (if any) claimed in respect
thereof. Section 7 gives power to the Forest
Settlement
Officer
to
investigate
the
objections. Section 8 prescribes that the
Forest Settlement Officer shall have the
same powers as a civil court has in the trial
of a suit. Section 9, inter alia, provides for
the extinction of rights where no claim is
made under Section 6. Section 11(1) b lays
down that in the case of a claim to a right
in or over any land, other than a right of
way or right of pasture, or a right to forest
produce or water course, the Forest
Settlement Officer, shall pass an order
admitting or rejecting the same in whole or
in part. In the event of admitting the right
of any person to the land, the Forest
Settlement Officer, under Section 11(2), can
either exclude such land from the limits of
the proposed forest or come to an
agreement with the owner thereof for the
surrender of his rights or proceed to
acquire such land in the manner provided
by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section
17 provides for appeal from various orders
under the Act and Section 18(4) for revision
before the State Government. When all the
proceedings provided under Sections 3 to
19 are over the State Government has to
publish a notification under Section 30
specifying definitely the limits of the forest
which is to be reserved and declaring the
same to be reserved from the date fixed by
the notification.

10. It is thus obvious that the
Forest Settlement Officer has the powers of
a civil court and his order is subject to
appeal and finally revision before the State
Government. The Act is a complete code in
itself and contains elaborate procedure for
declaring and notifying a reserve forest.
Once a notification under Section 20 of the
Act declaring a land as reserve forest is
published, then all the rights in the said
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
land claimed by any person come to an end
and
are
no
longer
available.
The
notification is binding on the consolidation
authorities in the same way as a decree of a
civil court. The respondents could very well
file
objections
and
claims
including
objection regarding the nature of the land
before the Forest Settlement Officer. They
did not file any objection or claim before
the authorities in the proceedings under the
Act. After the notification under Section 20
of the Act, the respondents could not have
raised any objections qua the said
notification
before
the
consolidation
authorities. The consolidation authorities
were bound by the notification which had
achieved finality."

31. Further attention has been drawn
towards the decision of Apex Court in re:
Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van
Prabhag vs. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj
(Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. AIR 2021
Supreme Court 4739 referring para 22 and
24, which reads as under :

"22. We do not find any merit in
the argument raised by Mr. Khan and Mr.
Hooda. In the notification published on
23.11.1955, there was a declaration that
land measuring 162 acres shall constitute
forest land. Explanation (1) to Section 4 of
the Forest Act clarifies that it would be
sufficient to describe the limits of the forest
by roads, rivers, ridges or other wellknown or readily intelligible boundaries.
The notification dated 23.11.1995 has the
boundaries on all four sides mentioned
therein. There is no other requirement
under section 4 of the Forest Act. It is only
Section 6 of the Forest Act which needs to
specify the situation and limits of the
proposed forest. In terms of such clause (a)
of Section 6 of the Forest Act, the details of
Khasra numbers which were part of 162
acres find mention in the proclamation so
published.
Therefore,
the
statutory
procedural requirements stand satisfied.

24. Mr. Khan further raised an
argument that the final notification under
Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been
published. A reading of Section 20 of the
Forest Act does not show that for a
reserved forest, there is a requirement of
publication of notification but no time limit
is prescribed for publication of such
notification under Section 20. Therefore,
even if notification under Section 20 of the
Forest Act has not been issued, by virtue of
Section 5 of the Forest Act, there is a
prohibition against acquisition of any right
over
the
land
comprised
in
such
notification except by way of a contract
executed in writing by or on behalf of the
Government.
Since
no
such
written
contract was executed by or on behalf of
the State or on behalf of the person in
whom such right was vested, therefore, the
Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant
lease in favour of the appellant."

32. Learned State Counsel has also
drawn attention of this Court towards the
decision of Division Bench of this Court in
re: State of U.P. vs. Kamal Jeet Singh,
2017 (9) ADJ 768 which has been passed
in the same matter referring para 2 & 45,
which reads as under :

"[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
6 All. Daya Shankar & Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kheri, District Kheri & Ors.
289
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.

45) On the basis of above legal
propositions, we conclude the present
petition as follows:

I. From the date of notification
under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition Act all the estate situate in U.P.
vested in the State and stand transferred
and vested in the State free from all
encumbrances.

II. The land in question was
previously in 1356F or before that was
recorded as junglat/ghas/waste land

III. Under the provisions of
Section 3 of the Forest Act. the State may
constitute any forest land or waste land
which is the property of the Government or
over which the Government has proprietary
right and declare it as reserved forest. The
land in question was recorded as junglat
being under the proprietary right of the
State and State has every authority to
declare the land as forest land.

IV. After notification of Section 4
of the Forest Act no right shall be acquired
in or over the land comprised in such
notification except by succession or under
a grant or contract in writing made or
entered into by or on behalf of the
Government. It is not a case where grant
was made by the Government.

V. No right shall be alienated by a
grant sale or otherwise without the
sanction of the State Government. Jagat
Ram had no authority to transfer the land.
Thus the respondents have no better title
than Jagat Ram.

VI. As reported by the revenue
authorities the land was recorded as bushes
or woody vegetation and it is included in
forest in light of Section 38(a) & (b) of UP.
Act No. XXIII of 1965

VII.
After
the
issuance
of
notification under Section 4 of the Forest
Act late Jagat Ram through whom
respondents claim their right on the basis
of a transfer deed had filed an objection
under Section 6 of the Forest Act and it was
decided in the year 1958 and the land was
declared as forest land. Thus the dispute
reached to its finality, as indicated above,
and except revision before the State no
authority has jurisdiction to determine the
rights as contained in Section 27-A of the
Forest Act

VIII. By way of measurement and
by way of notification the petitioners have
proved that the land in question is included
in the notification under Section 4 of the
Forest Act."

33. Therefore, learned State Counsel
has stated that both the writ petitions may
be dismissed.

34. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
on record as well as the relevant documents
so produced through instruction letter, I am
of the considered opinion that the order
being passed by the Consolidation Officer,
Settlement
Officer,
Consolidation
and
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Lakhimpur Kheri are valid and justifiable
orders passed strictly in accordance with
law.