Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
The first order which has been challenged through this writ petition is dated 8.5.1997 passed by Forest Settlement Officer (F.S.O.) Duddhi District Sonebhadra copy of the said order is Annexure 11 to the writ petition. The case was initiated on the application of the Forest Department Under Section 54 Land Revenue Act before Assistant Record Officer. However, it was transferred for disposal to the F.S.O. Matter relates to agricultural plot no.159 Kha (old no.152M).
The case of the Forest Department was that land in dispute was its property as it had been notified in the notification under Section 4 of Forest Act and Forest Department was in possession thereof hence the name of Forest Department should entered thereupon in the revenue records. Under general order passed by Supreme Court on 18.7.1994 in respect of Forest Land of Tehsil Duddhi District Sonebhadra the case was registered under suit no.670/94-95/18/230 of 1997 under Section 7/11 of Forest Act.
The case of the petitioners was that they had purchased the land in dispute through registered sale deed dated 28.7.1973 from its previous Bhomidhar whose name was recorded in the revenue record and after the sale their names were recorded. The case of the Forest Department was that land in dispute was situate within dense forest and in the land in dispute sufficient number of trees were standing.
Petitioner had taken up the case that the land in dispute was not included in the notification under Section 4 of Forest Act. In this regard reliance was placed upon notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act of 1970 Published in U.P. Gazette dated 19.9.1970 copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. It is correct that in the said notification different plot numbers are given but plot in dispute is not mentioned. However, the F.S.O. held that there was another notification of 1966. Copy of the said notification has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition which was published in U.P. Gazette dated 28.5.1966. That was also a notification under Section 4 Forest Act. In this notification land was described through boundaries. The land of different villages including village in question i.e. Murdhawan having an area of 4898.78 acres was included therein. The plot in dispute is covered by the said boundaries.
The F.S.O. held that the land in dispute was included in the Section 4 notification, it was Bhommidhari land of the petitioners but it contained jungle trees hence it was being included in the proposal for reserved forest. Thereafter, it was directed that proceedings under Clauses (ii) or (iii) of Section 11(2) of the Forest Act shall be initiated. Under the said clauses it is provided that if someone's private land of which he is bhommidhari is inside a forest then it may be acquired either through settlement with the tenure holder or under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
Against the order passed by the F.S.O. petitioners filed appeal. Different appeals were consolidated and decided together. Numbers of petitioner's appeals were 1 of 1998 and 17 of 1998. Both the appeals were dismissed on 5.3.1998 by A.D.J. Anpara at Obra, district Sonbhadra hence this writ petition.
In this case I passed an order on 6.9.2011 directing the parties to file supplementary affidavits stating therein as to whether any proceedings for surrender agreement or acquisition had been taken or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.A. Usmani filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that no such proceedings have been taken. However, learned standing counsel on 15.11.2011 when arguments were heard in this writ petition stated that no one had responded on behalf of Forest Department hence he could not reply the query of the Court.
Lower appellate court also held that land in dispute was covered by the Section 4 Notification of 1966 and merely because some plot numbers were mentioned in subsequent notification of 1970 under Section 4 of Forest Act it did not mean that the earlier notification under the same Section of the year 1966 stood cancelled or withdrawn.
The Forest Settlement Officer very rightly did not direct for recording of the name of the Forest Department. Forest settlement officer has categorically held in its order dated 8.5.1997 that petitioners are bhoomidhars in possession of the land in dispute. Accordingly, there is absolutely no threat to their possession unless the land is acquired under clauses (ii) or (iii) of Section 11 of the Forest Act. Until then their names are bound to continue in the revenue record and no one can interfere in their possession. However, the direction of the Forest Settlement Officer in the order dated 8.5.1997 to the effect that proceedings for acquisition under clauses (ii) or (iii) of Section 11(2) should be taken can not be set aside. There is absolutely no error in the said direction. Accordingly, both the impugned orders do not deserve to be set aside, they are perfectly in accordance with law. However, it is clarified that unless the land is acquired under clauses (ii) or (iii) of Section 11 of Forest Act names of the petitioners should be continued in the revenue records and no interference shall be made in their possession over the land in dispute.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.3.2012 vkg