# Rajeev Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 649
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 9481 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeev-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-51316
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Forest
Act,1927Section 11(2)-the petitioner challenged
the
orders
passed
by
the
Forest
Settlement officer-the dispute concerned
khasra no.8 which was recorded in the
name of the petitioner's ancestors-the
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
land was excluded from the reserved
forest by an order dated 28.5.1965however, later entries were made in
revenue records classifying the land as
"jungle jhadi"-FSO originally ruled in
favour of the petitioner later recalled the
order and dismissed the petitioner's caseHeld, the court ruled that the FSO, being a
quasi-judicial authority does not have the
power to review its own order unless
expressly
provided
by
statute-quasijudicial bodies cannot recall their own
orders -the court quashed and set aside
the orders-the state was given two
months to challenge the order before an
appropriate forum u/s 17 of the Forest
Act.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

12 All. Rajeev Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
649
9.

The
matter
requires
consideration.

10. As of now, apparently, so far as
the payment of lease rent by the petitioner
is concerned, the advertisement was not
very clear on this count and the notice
dated 04.11.2019, as claimed by the
petitioner, has been withdrawn, presumably
because the opposite parties themselves
thought it to be incorrect. We, therefore,
stay the impugned recovery notice and
direct the opposite parties to file a counter
affidavit in the matter within four weeks.
Petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit, if
any, within two weeks thereafter.

11. List thereafter.

12. In order to avoid any such
confusion as to the lease rent payable, it would
be better if in future whenever such auction
notices are issued, it is specifically mentioned
therein that if an auction takes place with more
than one person participating in it, the bid
money would be the lease rent payable and also
as to whether it would be payable annually or
for a period of ten years. For example, if the
highest bid which is accepted is Rs.2.00 lacs
then it should be made clear as to whether it is
payable annually or it is the lease rent payable
for the entire lease period of ten years as
everyday we find such dispute coming before
the Court. We also make it clear that so far as
the
minimum
and
maximum
amount
mentioned in sub-Rule (7) of Rule 57 of the
Rules, 2016 is concerned that applies where
only one person is found eligible for grant of
lease and this would happen only after the
exercise has been completed and not at the time
of of advertisement.

13. Let a copy of this order be sent
to the Collector, Balrampur for ensuring
compliance.
14. Considering larger interest of
State revenue involved, if this aspect is
looked into by the State Government and
necessary remedial measures whether it be
in the form of issuing a circular to all the
Collectors and other Revenue Authorities
who issue such auction notices is circulated
in the light of the observations made
hereinabove or necessary changes are made
either in the Revenue Code, 2006 or the
Rules made thereunder, if required, so that
the confusion as to the lease rent payable
under Rule 57 is removed.

15. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned
Standing Counsel shall communicate our
order
to
the
Additional
Chief
Secretary/Principal
Secretary,
Revenue,
Government of U.P. for necessary action.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 649
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ -C No. 9481 of 2023

Rajeev Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Madhusudan Dikshit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Indian
Forest
Act,1927Section 11(2)-the petitioner challenged
the
orders
passed
by
the
Forest
Settlement officer-the dispute concerned
khasra no.8 which was recorded in the
name of the petitioner's ancestors-the
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
land was excluded from the reserved
forest by an order dated 28.5.1965however, later entries were made in
revenue records classifying the land as
"jungle jhadi"-FSO originally ruled in
favour of the petitioner later recalled the
order and dismissed the petitioner's caseHeld, the court ruled that the FSO, being a
quasi-judicial authority does not have the
power to review its own order unless
expressly
provided
by
statute-quasijudicial bodies cannot recall their own
orders -the court quashed and set aside
the orders-the state was given two
months to challenge the order before an
appropriate forum u/s 17 of the Forest
Act.(Para 1 to 16)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sunil Kumar Vs St. of UP & ors.(2016) 11 ADJ
749

2. Smt. Shivraji & ors. Vs DDC & ors. (1997) RD
562

3. Smt. Shivanit Chaurasiya & anr.Vs St. of U.P.
& anr.(2024) AIR All 180

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Chandra
Dixit, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner challenging the
orders dated 6.2.2023, 13.2.2023 and
22.2.2023 passed by Forest Settlement
Officer, Bijnor/respondent no.2 in Case No.
02 of 2022 under Section 11(2) of Indian
Forest Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
Khasra No.8 was recorded in the name of
Raja Harishchandra in basic year Khatauni
1356-1357 F and thereafter name of Kumar
Chandra Bhan Singh, father of petitioner
was recorded in Khatauni 1358-1359 F. The
name of mother of petitioner Risal Manjari
Devi, wife of Late Chandra Bhan Singh
was recorded in Khatauni of 1372-74 F by
the order of Forest Settlement Officer. The
land was excluded from reserved forest by
the order of Forest Settlement Officer dated
28.5.1965 passed in Case No. 680 of 1965
under Section 11(2) of Forest Act. The
State Government had never issued any
notification under Section 4 of Forest Act
declaring the said land as reserved forest
but entries were made by Sub Divisional
Magistrate reserving the land as 'Jungle
Jhadi'.

3. The petitioner had moved an
application under Section 11(2) of Forest
Act challenging the illegal entries made in
khatauni and case was registered as Case
No. 02 of 2022. The Forest Settlement
Officer, Bijnor after considering the report
of Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as
objection of DGC(Revenue) had passed a
detailed order in favour of the petitioner
vide judgment and order dated 7.12.2022
expunging the "jungle jhadi" and recorded
the name of the petitioner. The finding has
been recorded by the Forest Settlement
Officer, Bijnor that entries of "junglejhadi" in revenue record is without any
basis and direction was issued to record the
name of petitioner being legal heir of Rani
Risal Manjari Devi. The order dated
7.12.2022 was passed on merits after
providing opportunity of hearing to the
learned
District
Government
Counsel(Revenue).

4. The District Government
Counsel(Revenue) had moved restoration
application on 21.12.2023 for recall of
order
dated
7.12.2022.
The
Forest
Settlement
Officer
vide
order
dated
13.2.2023 had recalled the order dated
7.12.2022 and thereafter dismissed the case
of the petitioner vide order dated 22.2.2023
12 All. Rajeev Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
651
which are impugned in the present writ
petition.

5. Heard Sri Madhusudan Dikshit,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of State respondents and perused the
record.

6. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that khasra no.8
was recorded in the name of mother of
petitioner namely Risal Manjari Devi and
after her death the petitioner was recorded
in revenue record and he has possession
over the same. The Forest Settlement
Officer vide order dated 28.5.1965 passed
in case no. 680 of 1965 under Section 11(2)
of Forest Act had excluded the land from
the limits of proposed forest. The case filed
by petitioner under Section 11(2) of Forest
Act being Case No. 02 of 2022 was
allowed by the Forest Settlement Officer
vide order dated 7.12.2022 and the name of
petitioner was directed to be recorded as
legal heir of Rani Risal Manjari Devi. The
order dated 7.12.2022 was recalled by
Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated
13.2.2023 and case no. 02 of 2023 was
dismissed vide order dated 22.2.2023. The
order passed by the Forest Settlement
Officer dated 13.2.2023 and 22.2.2023 are
without
jurisdiction,
as
the
Forest
Settlement Officer has no power under the
law to review his own order.

7. It is further submitted that order
dated 7.12.2022 was passed on merits and
the appeal is provided under Section 17 of
the Forest Act against any order passed by
the
Forest
Settlement
Officer
under
Sections 11,12,15 and 16. The only remedy
available to the respondents was to file an
appeal before the District Judge against the
order
dated
7.12.2022.
The
orders
impugned passed by Forest Settlement
Officer are without jurisdiction as he has no
power to review his own order.

8. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
State respondents has submitted that
jungle-jhadi' was recorded in revenue
record the land was reserved for forest and
the petitioner has no right or title of
disputed land. The orders dated 13.2.2023
and 22.2.2023 have rightly been passed and
there is no illegality in any manner. No
ground for interference is made out and the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Considered the submissions of
learned counsels for the parties and perused
the record.

10. It is admitted fact that the order
dated 7.12.2022 was passed by respondent
no.2 under Section 11(2) of Forest Act after
hearing counsel for the parties on merits.
The respondent no.2 after considering the
enquiry report submitted by Tehsildar,
Nagina dated 16.4.2018 and report of Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Nagina
dated
15.3.2022, had passed a very detailed order
on merits. The order dated 7.12.2022 was
passed
on
merits
after
providing
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned. The respondent no.2 had erred
in recalling the order dated 7.12.2022 by
the impugned order dated 13.2.2023, which
is not permissible under the law, as there is
no provision of review under the Forest
Act.

11. The law has been settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this
Hon'ble Court in series of cases that quasi
judicial authority has no power to review
its own order in absence of any power of
review conferred under the Statute.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. In the judgment passed by this
Court in Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P.
and others reported in 2016(11) ADJ 749
the Court has held that quasi judicial
authority has no power of review in
absence of any specific provision under the
Statute. The relevant paragraph 10 and 11
are quoted below:-

"10. It can not be disputed
that the impugned order has been
passed by a quasi judicial authority
and such authority cannot review
its order in absence of power of
Review conferred under the Statute.
11. The power of review of
quasi judicial authority in absence
of specific provision under the
statute has been dealt with in
several cases of this Court as well
as by the Apex Court. The Apex
Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.)
Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of
Hindu
Kanya
Mahavidyalaya,
Sitapur (U.P. and Ors. reported in
(1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 525
has held that unless power of
Review is expressly conferred on
the authority by any statute under
which it derives its' jurisdiction, the
authority concerned has no power
to Review its' earlier order. In
Para-11 of the aforesaid judgment
following observations has been
made:

A quasi-judicial authority
cannot review its own order, unless
the power of review is expressly
conferred on it by the statute under
which it derives its jurisdiction. The
Vice-Chancellor in considering the
question of approval of an order of
dismissed of the Principal, acts as
a quasi-judicial authority. The
provisions
of
the
U.P.
State
Universities Act, 1973 or of the
Statutes of the University do not
confer any power of review on the
Vice-
Chancellor.
In
the
circumstances, it must be held that
the Vice- Chancellor acted wholly
without jurisdiction in reviewing,
his/her earlier order. The review
order of the Vice-Chancellor was,
therefore, a nullity."

13. The Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Smt. Shivraji and others vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and
others reported in 1997 RD 562 has held
that the Consolidation authorities have no
power of review. The relevant paragraph 35
is quoted below:

"35.
Coming
to
the
provisions
of
the
U.
P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is
our considered view that the
consolidation
authorities,
particularly the Deputy Director of
Consolidation while deciding a
revision petition exercises judicial
or quasi judicial power and,
therefore, his order is final subject
to any power of appeal or revision
vested in superior authority under
the
Act.
The
consolidation
authorities, particularly the Deputy
Director of Consolida tion, is not
vested with any power of review of
his order and, therefore, cannot reopen any proceeding and cannot
review or revise his earlier order.
However, as a judicial or quasi
judicial authority he has the power
to
correct
any
clerical
mistake/arithmetical error manifest
error in his order in exercise of his
inherent power as a tribunal."
12 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
653
14. Similar view has been taken in
Smt. Shivanit Chaurasia & Another vs.
State of U.P. & Another reported in 2024
AIR(All) 180. The relevant paragraph '7' is
quoted below:-

"7. From an overview of
the judgments cited above, it is
clear that the Collector (Stamp)
cannot recall and/or review his own
order as no such power has been
conferred under Section 47-A of
the Act. A quasi-judicial authority
is limited in its functionality in as
much as it has to act within the four
corners of the statute from which it
derives its authority. If the statute
does not provide for a particular
act, the same cannot be undertaken
by that authority. Any such action
taken de hors the legislative intent
would amount to an overreach and
beyond the power of the said
authority".

15. It is well settled law that quasi
judicial authority has no right or authority
to review its own order unless it is
expressly conferred by the Statute itself. In
the present case, there is no provision of
review under the Forest Act. The orders
impugned dated 6.2.2023, 13.2.2023 and
22.2.2023 that are passed by respondent
no.2 reviewing its own order is without
jurisdiction. The impugned orders are liable
to be set aside.

16. The writ petition succeeds and
is allowed. The impugned orders dated
6.2.203, 13.2.2-23 and 22.2.2023 passed by
respondent no.2 are quashed and set aside.

17. However, it is open for the
State respondents to challenge the order
dated 7.12.2022 passed by respondent no.2
before the appropriate forum under Section
17 of Forest Act. If any appeal is filed by
the State respondent under Section 17 of
the Forest Act within a period of two
months from date, the same shall be
decided on merits without raising any
objection regarding limitation.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 653
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Writ -C No. 11305 of 2018
With
Writ-C Nos. 24819 of 2020, 304 of 2021 &
19485 of 2021

Ravindra Kumar Verma & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Manoj Kumar Gupta, Gajendra Yadav, Manish
Mani Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Manish Kumar

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 4, 6, 9,
117(1) & 117(6) - U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -Rule 26 -
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections
28, 32 & 33 - Petitioners houses and
adjacent lands stood on land recorded as
Abadi in Category 6(2) under Para A-124
of Uttar Pradesh Lands Records Manual
since time of their forefathers - Presumed
that houses and adjacent lands were
settled with respective occupiers of land
in terms of Section 9, and consequently,
occupiers became owners of said land -
Petitioners asserted that resumption of
land, virtually amounts to acquiring land