IMPORTANT POINT
Once a notification u/s 20 of the Indian Forest 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 and the notification is binding on the Consolidation Authorities in the same way as a decree of the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT

Kuldip Singh, J.-The land in dispute measuring 22.11 acres was notified as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (the act) by the notification dated August 19,1963. Respondents, in the appeals herein, claimed before the authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (the Consolidation Act) that they were in possession of the land and had acquired Sirdari rights. They further claimed that the land was illegally subjected to the proceedings under the Act because they had become owners of the land. Since the land was not the property of the Government-according to them-the notification declaring the land as reserved forest was illegal. The Consolidation Authorities accepted the objections of the respondents. The writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the State of U.P.- challenging the orders of the Consolidation Authorities -were dismissed by the High Court. These appeals are against the judgment of the High Court upholding the orders of the Consolidation Authorities.

2. We may briefly notice the facts of the case. The State Government issued a notification dated March 29, 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 August 19, 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.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondents did not raise any objection/claim before the Forest Settlement Officer under the Act. There is nothing on the record to show that any objection or claim was ever made by the respondents before the authorities under the Act. Consolidation operations commenced in the area on April 13, 1966. The respondents claimed before the Consolidation Authorities that they had acquired Sirdari rights in the land on the basis of their long possession. It was also claimed that the land in dispute was neither forest land nor waste land and as such in terms of Section 3 of the Act it could not be notified as reserved forest. Before the authorities under the Consolidation Act, the State of U.P. pleaded that the land in dispute stood vested in the State by the notification dated October 11, 1952 issued under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1951 (the Abolition Act). In the writ petition before the High Court the State Government averred as under :

"That in the objections filed by opposite party No. 4 the question that the land in dispute did not vest in the State Government, was not raised : nor was it pleaded that the State Government had no authority to issue a notification under Section 4 of the Act as the land in dispute was not covered by Section 3 of the Act. No issue on these points was framed by the Consolidation Officer."

4. The Consolidation Officer allowed the claim of the respondents and came to the conclusions that the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Act did not affect the rights of the respondents in the land in dispute. He, however, dismissed the claim of respondent Husain. The Settlement Officer upheld the claims of the respondents and dismissed the appeals filed by the State. He also dismissed the appeal filed by Husain. The revision petition filed by the State Government were dismissed by the Dy. Director Consolidation. However, the revision petition filed by Husain was allowed and he was also given relief in similar terms as the other respondents were given by the Consolidation Authorities. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the State of U.P. on the following reasonings :

"Para 2 of the writ petition states th