# State Of U.P. & Anr v. Chunnu & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 851
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-27
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1003453 of 1980
- **Bench:** Dinesh Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-anr-v-chunnu-ors-48160
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 4 -
Land, in dispute, was notified under the
Act - Adjudication by the Consolidation
authority - Permissibility - Jurisdiction of
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation
authority,
challenged
-
Held, once the notification is issued u/s 4
of the Act, the Consolidation Authorities
would lack jurisdiction with respect to the
land - High Court set aside the impugned
order passed by the District Judge. (Para 9
and 13)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Chunnu & Ors.
851
recorded their findings in the year 1968-69.
They were wholly oblivious of the nature of
the land 14-15 years back in the year
1954."

38. As mentioned above, in Khatauni
of 1351 Fasali, corresponding to 1953,
which was filed by the respondents before
the Forest Settlement Officer, the nature of
the land was mentioned as ''Banjar'. Once
the notification under Section-4 of the Act,
1927 was issued on 27.04.1960, the land
bearing Plot No.75-H had ceased to be the
holding inasmuch as it had been given to
Gaon-Sabha. Such land could be notified as
reserved forest under Section-4 of the Act,
1927
and,
thereafter
the
Bhoodan
Committee had no right, title or interest
over the land and, the said land could not
be held to be holding of the Bhoodan
Committee in view of provisions of
Section-5 of the Act, 1927.

39. Once the notification was issued
under Section-4 of the Act, 1927, no right
could have been 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. No fresh clearing
for cultivation or for any other purpose
could have been made.

40. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, it is held that the respondents,
who claimed to have been allotted
patta/lease by the Bhoodan Committee in
the year 1978 and their names got mutated
in the year 1978, had no right, title or
interest over the land in question in asmuch
as after notification dated 27.04.1960 under
Section-4 of the Act, 1927 was issued, the
land could not have been transferred by
Bhoodan Committee in view of the bar
created under Section-5 of the Act, 1927.
Further, even otherwise the Bhoodan
Committee ceased to have any right to
transfer this land in favour of any person
after three years from 1957 to 1960. Even
otherwise, the land was recorded as
''Banjar' in the revenue record and it got
vested in the Gaon-Sabha. The two
authorities have fallen in gross error of
facts and law in directing to exclude the
land in question bearing Plot No.75-H
situated in Village Khairati Purwa, Pargana
Ferozabad, Tehsil Nighasan, District Kheri
from the boundaries of the reserved forest
from the Notification dated 27.04.1960.

41. Thus, the writ petitions are
allowed. Consequently, the impugned
orders are quashed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A851
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1003453 of 1980
&
Writ C No. 1003454 of 1980

State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Chunnu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dr. R.K. Srivastava, C.S.C.

A. Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 4 -
Land, in dispute, was notified under the
Act - Adjudication by the Consolidation
authority - Permissibility - Jurisdiction of
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Consolidation
authority,
challenged
-
Held, once the notification is issued u/s 4
of the Act, the Consolidation Authorities
would lack jurisdiction with respect to the
land - High Court set aside the impugned
order passed by the District Judge. (Para 9
and 13)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Mahendra Lal Jaini Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; AIR
1963 SC 1019
2. St. of U.P. Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation &
ors.; (1996) 5 SCC 194
3. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag
Vs Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Thr. LRs. &
ors.; 2021 SCC OnLine SC 868
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

1. In this case, Khasra Plot No.134,
admeasuring 9.25 Acres, situated in Village
Ramuapur,
Pargana
Shrinagar,
Tehsil
Lakhimpur, District Kheri, was recorded as
Gaon-Sabha land as ''Jangal Jhadi' in the
revenue record in the Khatauni of the Fasali
Year 1372 to 1375. Non-Holding Certificate
dated 04.01.1967 was issued after proper
inquiry by the State Government under
Section 117 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (for short "Act, 1950")
and vested in Gaon-Sabha for protection and
management of forest vide Notification dated
14.04.1967.

2. The said land, along with other lands,
were notified under Section-4 of The Indian
Forest Act, 1927 (for short "Act, 1927") vide
Notification dated 14.04.1967 in order to
declare
the
lands
mentioned
in
the
notification as ''reserved forest'. Thereafter,
the proclamation was issued under Section-6
of the Act, 1927 by the Forest Settlement
Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. The respondents filed a time-barred
objection after more than 11 years on
07.06.1978 from the date of publication of
notification under Section-4 of the Act,
1927. The respondents had taken objection
that the land in dispute was allotted to them
by the Consolidation Authority and, they
were delivered possession over the plots.

4. The Forest Department filed its
reply on 14.07.1978, stating that Plot
No.174 had been carved out from the old
Plot No.134, which had already been
notified under Section-4 of the Act, 1927
on
14.12.1967
and,
as
such,
the
Consolidation
Authorities
had
no
jurisdiction to adjudicate in respect of the
land in dispute. It was also stated that the
objections, filed by the respondents, were
time-barred.

5. The Forest Settlement Officer vide
order dated 20.02.1979 dismissed the claim
of the objectors preferred under Section-6
of the Act, 1927 on the ground that the
decision of the Consolidation Authority in
respect of plots in dispute was ineffective
and, not binding as the Consolidation
Authority had no jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon the rights of the parties in respect of
the land notified under Section-4 of the
Act, 1927. It was vested in the Gaon-Sabha
under Section-117 of the Act, 1950 vide
Notification dated 12.04.1969, which was
issued after Non-Holding Certificate was
issued by the Collector for management.
The Forest Settlement Officer, however,
condoned the delay of 11 years, without
recording
any
satisfaction
regarding
sufficient cause being shown for condoning
the delay of 11 years in filing the objection
of the respondents. The respondents,
thereafter
filed
Civil
Appeal
No.2223/1979 under Section-17 of the Act, 1927
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Chunnu & Ors.
853
before the Additional District Judge, Kheri
on 16.04.1979.

6. The Additional District Judge vide
impugned judgment and order dated
15.05.1980 allowed the appeal on the basis
of wrong entries made in the revenue
record. It is well settled that once the
notification in respect of the land is issued
under Section-4 of the Act, 1927, the
Consolidation Authorities would not have
any jurisdiction with respect to the said
land.

7. Against the said judgment and
order dated 15.05.1980 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Kheri, the Forest
Department filed the present petitions,
which were also clubbed along with other
writ petitions, being Writ Petition Nos. 914
(M/S) of 1981 and 915 (M/S) of 1981.
Initially, this Court vide judgment and
order dated 04.02.1998 had dismissed the
writ petitions, holding that the land in
dispute was neither the forest land nor the
waste land, however, the Supreme Court
vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2010
had allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 4608-4616
of 2004 and, remanded the matter to this
Court for a fresh decision, in accordance
with law.

8. In this case notification under
Section-4 of the Act, 1927 was issued on
14.12.1967 and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Kheri was notified as Forest Settlement
Officer under Section-17 of the Act, 1927.
The respondents had no right over the land
in question and, after the notification issued
under Section-4 of the Act, 1927, the
Consolidation Authorities could not have
allotted the land to the respondents as the
land was not holding of anyone or part of
the holding of village Abadi. This land was
not an agricultural land inasmuch the land
got vested in Gaon-Sabha as a result of
notification dated 12.04.1969 issued under
Section-117 of the Act, 1950.

9. The findings recorded by the
learned District Judge are contrary to the
facts and evidence on record. Once the
notification is issued under Section-4 of the
Act, 1927, the Consolidation Authorities
would lack jurisdiction with respect to the
land
under
notification
issued
under
Section-4 of the Act, 1927.

10. The Supreme Court in AIR 1963
SC 1019 (Mahendra Lal Jaini Vs. State of
U.P. and others) in paragraph-29 has held
as under:-

"29. It is next urged that even if
Sections 38-A to 38-G are ancillary to
Chapter II, they would not apply to the
petitioner's land, as Chapter II deals inter
alia with waste land or forest land, which is
the property of the Government and not
with that land which is not the property of
the Government, which is dealt with under
Chapter V. That is so. But unless the
petitioner can show that the land in dispute
in this case is his property and not the
property of the State, Chapter II will apply
to it. Now there is no dispute that the land
in dispute belonged to the Maharaja
Bahadur of Nahen before the Abolition Act
and the said Maharaja Bahadur was an
intermediary. Therefore, the land in dispute
vested in the State under Section 6 of the
Abolition Act and became the property of
the State. It is however, contended on
behalf of the petitioner that if he is held to
be a bhumidhar in proper proceeding, the
land would be his property and therefore
Chapter V-A, as originally enacted, if it is
ancillary to Chapter II would not apply to
the land in dispute. We are of opinion that
there is no force in this contention. We
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have already pointed out that under Section
6 of the Abolition Act all property of
intermediaries including the land in dispute
vested in the State Government and became
its property. It is true that under Section
18, certain lands were deemed to be settled
as bhumidhari lands, but it is clear that
after land vests in the State Government
under Section 6 of the Abolition Act, there
is no provision therein for divesting of what
has vested in the State Government. It is,
however, urged on behalf of the petitioner
that he claims to be the proprietor of this
land as a bhumidhar because of certain
provisions in the Act. There was no such
proprietary right as bhumidhari right
before the Abolition Act. The Abolition Act
did away with all proprietary rights in the
area to which it applied and created three
classes
of
tenure
by
Section
129;
bhumidhar, sirdar and asami, which were
unknown before. Thus bhumidhar, sirdar
and asami are all tenure-holders under the
Abolition Act and they hold their tenure
under the State in which the proprietary
right vested under Section 6. It is true that
bhumidhars have certain wider rights in
their tenure as compared to sirdars;
similarly sirdars have wider rights as
compared to asamis, but nonetheless all the
three are mere tenure-holders-with varying
rights under the State which is the
proprietor of the entire land in the State to
which the Abolition Act applied. It is not
disputed that the Abolition Act applies to
the land in dispute and therefore the State
is the proprietor of the land in dispute and
the petitioner even if he were a bhumidhar
would still be a tenure-holder. Further, the
land in dispute is either waste land or
forest land (far it is so for not converted to
agriculture) over which the State has
proprietary rights and therefore Chapter II
will clearly apply to this land and so would
Chapter V-A. It is true that a bhumidhar
has got a heritable and transferable right
and he can use his holding for any purpose
including
industrial
and
residential
purposes and if he does so that part of the
holding will be demarcated under Section
143. It is also true that generally speaking,
there is no ejectment of a bhumidhar and
no forfeiture of his land. He also pays land
revenue (Section 241) but in that respect he
is on the same footing as a sirdar, who can
hardly be called a proprietor because his
interest is not transferable except as
expressly permitted by the Act. Therefore,
the fact that the payment made by the
bhumidhar to the State is called land
revenue and not rent would not necessarily
make him a proprietor, because sirdar also
pays land-revenue, though his rights are
very much lower than that of a bhumidhar.
It is true that the rights which the
bhumidhar
has
to
a
certain
extent
approximate
to
the
rights
which
a
proprietor used to have before the
Abolition Act was passed; but it is clear
that rights of a bhumidhar are in many
respects less and in many other respects
restricted
as
compared
to
the
old
proprietor before the Abolition Act. For
example, the bhumidhar has no right as
such in the minerals under the subsoil.
Section 154 makes a restriction on the
power of a bhumidhar to make certain
transfers.
Section
155
forbids
the
bhumidhar
from
making
usufructuary
mortagages.
Section
156
forbids
a
bhumidhar, sirdar or asami from letting the
land to others, unless the case comes under
Section 157. Section 189(aa) provides that
where a bhumidhar lets out his holding or
any part thereof in contravention of the
provisions of this Act, his right will be
extinguished. It is clear therefore that
though bhumidhars have higher rights than
sirdars and asamis, they are still mere
tenure-holders under the State which is the
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Chunnu & Ors.
855
proprietor of all lands in the area to which
the Abolition Act applies. The petitioner
therefore even if he is presumed to be a
bhumidhar cannot claim to be a proprietor
to whom Chapter II of the Forest Act does
not apply, and therefore Chapter V-A, as
originally enacted, would not apply: (see in
this connection, Mst Govindi v. State of
Uttar Pradesh [AIR [1952] All 88] . As we
have already pointed out Sections 4 and 11
give power for determination of all rights
subordinate to those of a proprietor, and as
the right of the bhumiidhar is that of a
tenure-holder, subordinate to the State,
which is the proprietor of the land in
dispute, it will be open to the Forest
Settlement Officer to consider the claim
made to the land in dispute by the
petitioner, if he claims to be a bhumidhar.
This is in addition to the provision of
Section 229-B of the Abolition Act. The
petitioner therefore even if he is a
bhumidhar cannot claim that the land in
dispute is out of the provisions of Chapter
II and therefore Chapter V-A, even if it is
ancillary to Chapter II, would not apply.
We
must
therefore
uphold
the
constitutionality
of
Chapter
V-A,
as
originally enacted, in the view we have
taken of its being supplementary to Chapter
II, and we further hold that Chapter II and
Chapter V-A will apply to the land in
dispute even if the petitioner is assumed to
be the bhumidhar, of that land."

11. Similar view has been reiterated
by the Supreme Court in the case (1996) 5
SCC 194 (State of U.P. Vs. Dy. Director of
Consolidation and others) in paragraphs-2,
5 and 6, which are extracted hereunder:-

"2. We may briefly notice the
facts of the case. The State Government
issued a notification dated 29-3-1954
declaring its intention to constitute the land
in dispute a reserved forest. After disposal
of the objections filed under Section 6 read
with Section 9 of the Act and the
finalisation of the appeals under Section 17
of the Act, a notification dated 19-8-1963
declaring the land in dispute to be reserved
for forest was issued. In the revenue
records the respondents were recorded as
Sirdari-holders of the land. The land was
also recorded as a part of the forest
department khata.

5. We are of the view that the
High Court fell into patent error in
appreciating the provisions of the Act and
the Abolition Act. It is not disputed that the
Abolition Act applied to the land in dispute
and, therefore, the State was the proprietor
of the land and the respondents, even if
they were Sirdars, would still be tenureholders.

6. This Court in Mahendra Lal
Jaini v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 1019]
dealt with an identical question. Mahendra
Lal Jaini, in a petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India, contended before
this Court that he being a Bhumidhar in
possession, the provisions of the Act (the
Forest Act, 1927) would not apply to the
said land. Repelling the contention this
Court held that though Bhumidhars have
higher rights than Sirdars and Asamis, they
were still tenure-holders under the State
which was proprietor of the land in the
areas to which the Abolition Act applied. It
was further held that, even if it was
presumed that the petitioner Mahendra Lal
Jaini was a Bhumidhar, he could not claim
to be the proprietor of the land. It was held
that the provisions of the Act would be
applicable to the land in dispute. It would
be useful to reproduce the relevant part
from the judgment of this Court in
Mahendra Lal case [AIR 1963 SC 1019] :
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"It is, however, urged on behalf
of the petitioner that he claims to be the
proprietor of this land as a Bhumidhar
because of certain provisions in the Act.
There was no such proprietary right as
Bhumidhari right before the Abolition Act.
The Abolition Act did away with all
proprietary rights in the area to which it
applied and created three classes of tenure
by Section 129; Bhumidhar, Sirdar and
asami, which were unknown before. Thus
Bhumidhar, Sirdar and asami are all
tenure-holders under the Abolition Act and
they hold their tenure under the State in
which the proprietary right vested under
Section 6. It is true that Bhumidhars have
certain wider rights in their tenures as
compared to Sirdars; similarly Sirdars
have wider rights as compared to asamis,
but nonetheless all the three are mere
tenure-holders -- with varying rights --
under the State which is the proprietor of
the entire land in the State to which the
Abolition Act applied. It is not disputed that
the Abolition Act applies to the land in
dispute and therefore the State is the
proprietor of the land in dispute and the
petitioner even if he were a Bhumidhar
would still be a tenure-holder. ... The
petitioner therefore even if he is presumed
to be a Bhumidhar cannot claim to be a
proprietor to whom Chap. II of the Forest
Act does not apply, and therefore Chap. VA, as originally enacted, would not apply:
(See in this connection, Mst. Govindi v.
State of U.P. [AIR 1952 All 88 : 1952 All
LJ 52] ) As we have already pointed out
Sections 4 and 11 give power for
determination of all rights subordinate to
those of a proprietor, and as the right of
the Bhumidhar is that of a tenure-holder,
subordinate to the State, which is the
proprietor of the land in dispute, it will be
open to the Forest Settlement Officer to
consider the claim made to the land in
dispute by the petitioner, if he claims to be
a Bhumidhar."

12. Recently, the Supreme Court in
2021 SCC OnLine SC 868 (Prabhagiya
Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag Vs.
Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Thr. LRs.
and Others) in paragraphs-16 to 28 has
held as under:-

"16. Learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the High Court
has gravely erred in setting aside the order
passed by the Deputy Director as there was
no legal or factual basis to do so. The
notification dated 11.10.1952 published in
terms of Section 4 of the Abolition Act was
to the effect that all estates situated in
Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State. The
extent to which uncultivated land which not
vests in Gaon Samaj was mentioned in
Column 5 stating that 162 acres of Village
Kasmandi Khurd would not vest in Gaon
Samaj. Such notification has the effect that
all rights, title and interest, shall be
deemed to be vested in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. In terms of Section 117 of the
Abolition Act, the State can transfer the
lands by a general or special order as
prescribed therein including forests to
Gaon Sabha and to other local authorities.
It is not the case of any of the parties that
the land, which was the subject matter of
notification dated 11.10.1952, was subject
to any general or special orders by the
State to transfer the same in favor of Gaon
Sabha and/or any other local authority.
Therefore,
the
land
comprising
in
notification
dated
11.10.1952
unequivocally vests with the State.

17. It is thereafter that a
notification
dated
23.11.1955
was
published in respect of 162 acres of land
situated
in
Kasmandi
Khurd.
Such
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Chunnu & Ors.
857
notification
describes
the
land
with
boundaries mentioned in the notification.
Thereafter, another proclamation was
published under Section 6 of the Forest Act
in respect of 162 acres of land including 20
bighas 13 biswas and 10 biswansi of
Khasra No. 1576 of Village Kasmandi
Khurd. The notification under Section 4 of
the Forest Act to declare any land as
reserved forest could be issued if the State
has proprietary rights over such land or if
it is entitled to the produce thereof.

18. The State Government has the
jurisdiction to declare a protected forest if
the land is the property of the Government
over
which
proprietary
rights
are
exercised. The land measuring 162 acres
was the property of the Government in
terms of the notification dated 11.10.1952.
In terms of Section 4 of the Forest Act, the
State Government can issue a notification
to constitute any land as reserved forest.
The notification dated 23.11.1955 satisfies
the three conditions mentioned in subsection 4 i.e., (i) decision to constitute such
land as reserved forest, (ii) situation and
limits of such land, and (iii) appointing an
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. The lessees were not in possession of
any part of the land at the time of issuance
of such notification under Section 4 on
23.11.1955. Therefore, they have rightly
not claimed any right over the property nor
the Gaon Sabha has claimed any right in
the land measuring 162 acres notified
under Section 4 of the Act.

19. Section 5 of the Forest Act
bars that no right shall be acquired in or
over the land comprised in notification
under Section 4 of the Forest Act, except by
succession or under a grant or contract in
writing made or entered into by or on
behalf of the Government. Once the
notification
dated
23.11.1955
was
published under Section 4 of the Forest
Act, there could not be any transfer of right
in the land so notified in favour of the
lessee by the Gaon Sabha.

20.
It
is
thereafter,
a
proclamation was required to be issued
under Section 6 of the Forest Act
publishing in the local vernacular in every
town and village specified, as nearly as
possible, the situation and limits of the
proposed forest. In the proclamation under
Section 6 of the Forest Act, different khasra
numbers have been specified including
Khasra No. 1576. Such khasra number
forms part of the total forest land declared
under Section 4 of the Act measuring 162
acres. The proclamation of publication was
published in the locality but none including
the Gaon Sabha objected to the declaration
of land as forest area.

21. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for
the lessee and Mr. Hooda, learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha vehemently argued that
the details of land in respect of which
notification under Section 4 of the Forest
Act was issued are not mentioned, except
providing the total area measuring 162
acres. It was argued that such notification
is vague and does not comply with the
conditions specified in Section 4 of the
Forest Act. It was only in the proclamation
published under Section 6 of the Forest Act
that Khasra No. 1576 was mentioned.

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
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 23.11.1955 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.

23. Learned counsel for the
appellant referred to a judgment reported
as State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of
Consolidation wherein the land was
notified as a reserved forest under Section
20 of the Forest Act but the respondents in
appeal before this Court claimed that they
were in possession of the land and had
acquired Sirdari rights. This Court held
that in terms of the Abolition Act, the State
was the proprietor of the land and the
respondents, even if they were Sirdars,
would still be tenure-holders. It was also
held that the Consolidation Authorities
have no jurisdiction to go behind the
notification under Section 20 of the Forest
Act. The Court held as under:

"7. It is thus obvious that a
person who was holding the land as Sirdar
was not vested with proprietary rights
under the Abolition Act. He was a tenureholder and the proprietary rights vested
with the State. The High Court, therefore,
fell into patent error in assuming that by
virtue of their status as Sirdars the
respondents were proprietors of the land.
The State being the proprietor of the land
under the Abolition Act, it was justified in
issuing the notification under Section 4 of
the Act.

xxxxxxxxx

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
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."

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
2 All. State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Chunnu & Ors.
859
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.

25. In a judgment reported as
State of Uttarakhand v. Kumaon Stone
Crusher an argument was raised that since
notification under Section 20 of the Forest
Act has not been published therefore, land
covered by notification issued under
Section 4 cannot be regarded as forest.
This Court negated the argument relying
upon Section 5 of the Forest Act as
amended in State of Uttar Pradesh by U.P.
Act No. 23 of 1965. It was held that
regulation by
the
State
comes
into
operation after the issue of notification
under Section 4 of the Forest Act and that
absence of notification under Section 20 of
the Forest Act cannot be accepted. The
Court held as under:

"145. At this juncture, it is also
necessary to notice one submission raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
It is contended that the State of Uttar
Pradesh although issued notification
under Section 4 of the 1927 Act
proposing to constitute a land as forest
but no final notification having been
issued under Section 20 of the 1927 Act
the land covered by a notification issued
under Section 4 cannot be regarded as
forest so as to levy transit fee on the
forest produce transiting through that
area. With reference to the above
submission, it is sufficient to notice
Section 5 as inserted by Uttar Pradesh
Act 23 of 1965 with effect from 25-111965. By the aforesaid U.P. Act 23 of
1965 Section 5 has been substituted to the
following effect:

"5. Bar of accrual of forest
rights.--After the issue of the notification
under Section 4 no right shall be
acquired in or over the land comprised in
such notification, except by succession or
under a grant or a 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, nor
any tree therein felled, girdled, lopped,
tapped, or burnt, or its bark or leaves
stripped off, or the same otherwise
damaged,
nor
any
forest
produce
removed therefrom, except in accordance
with such rules as may be made by the
State Government in this behalf."

146. Section 5 clearly provides
that after the issue of the notification under
Section 4 no forest produce can be removed
therefrom, except in accordance with such
rules as may be made by the State
Government in this behalf. The regulation
by the State thus comes into operation after
the issue of notification under Section 4
and thus the submission of the petitioners
that since no final notification under
Section 20 has been issued they cannot be
regulated by the 1978 Rules cannot be
accepted."

26. This Court in a judgment
reported as Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu
Kumhar negated argument of ownership
based upon entries in the revenue records.
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
It was held that the revenue record does
not confer title to the property nor do they
have any presumptive value on the title.
The Court held as under:

"5. The contention raised by the
appellants is that since Mangal Kumhar
was the recorded tenant in the suit property
as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the
suit
property
was
his
self-acquired
property. The said contention is legally
misconceived since entries in the revenue
records do not confer title to a property,
nor do they have any presumptive value on
the title. They only enable the person in
whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay
the land revenue in respect of the land in
question.
As
a
consequence,
merely
because Mangal Kumhar's name was
recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964
as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it
would not make him the sole and exclusive
owner of the suit property."

27. The six yearly khatauni for
the fasli year 1395 to 1400 is to the effect
that the land stands transferred according
to the Forest Act as the reserved forest.
Such revenue record is in respect of
Khasra No. 1576. It is only in the revenue
record for the period 1394 fasli to 1395
fasli, name of the lessees find mention but
without any basis. The revenue record is
not a document of title. Therefore, even if
the name of the lessee finds mention in the
revenue record but such entry without any
supporting documents of creation of lease
contemplated under the Forest Act is
inconsequential and does not create any
right, title or interest over 12 bighas of
land claimed to be in possession of the
lessee as a lessee of the Gaon Sabha.

28.
The
High
Court
had
referred to the objections filed by the
lessees under the Consolidation Act and
also
objections
by
the
Forest
Department. It was held by the High
Court that since no objections were filed
by
the
Forest
Department
earlier,
therefore,
the objections would be
barred
by
Section
49
of
the
Consolidation Act. We find that such
finding recorded by the High Court is
clearly erroneous. The land vests in the
Forest
Department
by
virtue
of
notification published under a statute. It
was the lessee who had to assert the title
on the forest land by virtue of an
agreement in writing by a competent
authority but no such agreement in
writing has been produced. Therefore,
the lessee would not be entitled to any
right only on the basis of an entry in the
revenue record.

13. Considering the fact that the
allotment of the forest land in favour of
the
respondents
was
de
hors
the
provisions of the Act, 1927 and, further
the Consolidation Authorities had no
jurisdiction to deal with the land under
notification issued under Section-4 of
the Act, 1927, the present writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated
15.05.1980 passed by the IV Additional
District Judge, Kheri, copy of which is
contained in Annexure No. 1 to the
petitions, is set-aside. However, it would
be open to the respondents to claim the
other lands in lieu of the land part of
notification under Section-4 of the Act,
1927 if their holdings got reduced during
consolidation proceedings because they
were wrongly allotted the forest lands. If
such proceedings are instituted, the
limitation would not come in the way in
instituting
the
proceedings
by
the
respondents.
----------
2 All. Ajay Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
861
(2022)02ILR A861
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 3000031 of 1994

Ajay Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
H.S. Sahai, Jai Prakash Dubey, Onkar Nath
Tiwari, U.S.Sahai, Shankar Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Ceiling Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 9
and 10(2) - General Clauses Act, 1897 -
Section 21 - Second notice was issued u/s
10(2) - Objection filed on the ground that
it was issued against his father, who was
dead - Maintainability of second notice
challenged - First general notice u/s 9
was already issued - Effect - Held, the
prescribed authority has not committed
any error in issuing second notice - It
would not be prudent to institute two
separate cases inasmuch as the notices
have been issued in respect of the same
land holding - High Court issued direction
clubbing
both
notices,
giving
the
petitioner
one
month
time
to
file
comprehensive objection. (Para 18 and
19)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Lady Parassan Kaur Charitable Educational
Trust Society, Gorakhpur Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2002 (93) RD 663
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking quashing of the notice
dated 4.1.1989 issued by the prescribed
authority under Section 10(2) of the U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act, 1960').

2. Initially, a notice under Section
10(2) of the Act, 1960 was issued to the
petitioner on 24.11.1987. This Notice was
issued against Bhanu Pratap Singh, father
of the petitioner, who had died when the
notice was issued.

3. The petitioner had filed objection
to the first notice. The petitioner said that
an area 14 bigha 18 biswas situated at
Village Shekhpur was exclusive holding of
the father of the petitioner which was
transferred by gift by his father to the
petitioner prior to the cut off dated i.e.
24.1.1971 and as a result of this gift, the
petitioner had come into possession of the
said land and he became bhumidhar of the
said land during the life time of his father.
It is alleged that no objection was filed by
the State to the objection filed by the
petitioner. The parties lead their evidence
and arguments were heard on 30.11.1988
and the next date was fixed as 14.12.1988.
However,
no
order
was
passed
on
14.12.1988 and, thereafter, the case was
fixed for 4.1.1989 for orders. On 4.1.1989,
an application was moved on behalf of the
state before the prescribed authority for
withdrawing the notice dated 24.11.1987
with liberty to file afresh notice. The said
application was allowed on the same date
i.e. 4.1.1989 by the prescribed authority
and notice was allowed to be withdrawn.