JUDGMENT S.U. Khan, J.
1. In spite of sufficient service no one appeared on behalf of legal representatives of respondent No. 1 hence only the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner State was heard.
2. Sri O.N. Asthana the then learned I Additional District Judge, Varanasi through impugned order dated 30.5.1984 passed on appeal under Section 17 of Forest Act 1927 set-aside the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act. Against the notification under Section 4 of the said Act, no appeal is provided. Appeal is provided against orders passed under Section 11, 12, 15 and 16 of the Act which relate to a decision on the rights of persons in the land declared by notification under Section 4 of the act, which is quoted below:
4. NOTIFICATION BY STATE GOVERNMENT. (1) Whenever it has been decided to constitute any land, a reserve forest, the [State Government] shall issue a notification in the [official gazette]-
(a) declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserve forest;
(b) specifying, as merely as possible, the situation and limits of such land; and
(c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called as Forest Settlement Officer) to enquire 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 described the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, bridges or other well known or readily intelligible boundaries.
3. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 24.9.1954. Respondent No. l filed his claim in the year 1980 under Section 6 and 9 before the Forest Settlement Officer Chakia, Varanasi which was registered as case No. 312 of 1980. The case of respondent No. l was that he had purchased the plot No. 12 area 5 Bigha on 14.4.1969. The objections of respondent No. l were highly belated. All other objections which had earlier been filed either within time or after expiry of time but along with delay condonation applications under] Section 9 of the Act had already been disposed of and matter had been sent to the State for publication of notification under Section 20 of the Act.
4. Under Section 6 of the Act every person who may have any claim over any portion of the land covered by a notification under Section 4 of the Act may file objections within three months. The claims are to be decided under Section 11 of the Act. Unless the claim is decided in favour of the claimant or admitted by the Forest Settlement Officer, rights of all the persons are extinguished in the land covered by Section 4 of the Act.
5. The claim of respondent No. l was rejected/ dismissed by Forest Settlement Officer, Varanasi through order dated 31.1.1983. Forest Settlement Officer held that the claim was highly belated without their being any reason or explanation for delay. It was further held that in the Khatauni of 1383 fasli, plot No. 12/1 area 472 Bigha 1 Biswa was entered as Jhari and Jungle, belonging to the State and it was further mentioned that the entry was made in accordance with the order dated 15.6.1959 given in Case No. 9. In the order, it has come that at the time of inspection on the spot the son of respondent No. 1 could not point out his land and he admitted that he or his father never cultivated the land in dispute as forest people restrained them from doing so.
6. Against Order dated 31.1.1983 respondent No. 1 filed Misc. Appeal No. 165 of 1983. The entire appellate order is quoted below:
This is the Misc. appeal against the judgment debtor of Forest Settlement Officer, Chakia, Varanasi dated 31.1.1983 where the claim of Tengari was rejected.
The notification Under Section 4 of the Forest Act is vague. The alleged acquired land for forest is not sufficiently identifiable. There is also no scale map to make it identifiable. Accordingly the notification of forest stand set-aside.
ORDER The appeal is allowed accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs of appeal.
Signed O.N. Asthana 30.5.1984
7. As stated earlier the learned Additional District Judge had absolutely no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against notification under Section 4 of the Act. Appeal is directed against decision of Forest Settlement Officer in respect of claim of particular person. Even otherwise absolutely no vagueness in the notification has been pointed out in the impugned order. Scale map is not necessary in respect of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
8. Respondent No. 1 could not explain the delay in making the objection. Son of respondent No. 1 clearly admitted that they had never been able to cultivate the land in dispute hence Forest Settlement Officer rightly rejected the claim of the respondent No. 1.
9. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the appellate court is set-aside. Order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer dated 31.1.1983 is restored.