Judgement

GUPTA, J. :- This appeal by certificate granted by the Allahabad High court, Lucknow Bench, under Article 133 (1)(b) of the constitution has its origin in a proceeding under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Appellant Madan Lal had preferred a claim under Section 6 of the Act in respect of certain plots of land in village Khamaria. Pargana Khairigarh, District Kheri which were included along with other land in a notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on April 3, 1954 declaring that the State Government had decided to constitute the said land a reserved forest. The Divisional Forest Officer, North Kheri Division, filed an objection to the claim of the appellant that he had Sirdari rights in the said plots. An inquiry into the claim was started by the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 7 of the Act and evidence of the parties was concluded on February 19,1955. The case was adjourned for local inspection to March 3. 1955. The local inspection was not however held on the due date and was made instead on May 3, 1955 when the Forest Settlement Officer further directed that the case would be out up for orders, but it was not stated when. The record of the case shows that on May 9. 1955 the Forest Settlement Officer recorded an order under Section 11 (1) of the Act that the appellant had proved his claim, and directed the Divisional Forest Officer to "inform within 15 days whether he wants the land on payment of compensation or not." Section 11 (1) reads :

"In the case of a claim to a right in or over any land, other than a right of way or right of pasture or a right to forest-produce or a water-course, the Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part."

Sub-section (2) of Section 11 states:

"If such claim is admitted in whole or in part, the Forest Settlement Officer shall either

(i) exclude such land from the limits of the proposed forest; or

(ii) come to an agreement with the owner thereof for the surrender of his rights; or

(iii) proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894."

3. According to the respondents the order made by the Forest Settlement Officer admitting the claim of the appellant was passed without any notice to them and in their absence. The respondent s case is that they came to know of this order on April 24. 1956 when the Forest Settlement Officer recorded another order stating:

"Claim has been admitted in this case. The case will be included in the list to be forwarded to the Government. When information from the Government is received in regard to the acquisition of land, further action will be taken under Section 11 (2) (iii) of the Indian Forest Act..........."

4. The first respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, filed on appeal through the Divisional Forest Officer (respondent No. 2) in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur-Kheri on July 20, 1956 under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 allows an appeal to be preferred by any person who has made a claim under the Act or any Forest Officer or other person generally or specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, against an order passed on such claim by the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 11. The section prescribed a time-limit of three months from the date of the order for presenting the appeal. The petition of appeal under Section 17 presented in this case shows that it was directed "against the order dated 24-4-1956" and the prayer made in the petition was : "This appeal be allowed and the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer admitting the claim of the respondent be set aside with costs........." The appellate tribunal repelling a contention raised by the claimant that the appeal was barred by limitation observed:

"Since the order dated 9-5-1955 was not delivered in the presence of the parties or after giving them any notice of date it cannot be said to have been delivered properly under