The Bihar Private Forests (Validating) Act, 1949, barred the tenure-holders or their successors-in-interest from challenging the validity of the proceedings on the ground of non-service of notification.

Jamuar, J.

1. This is a reference under Sec. 438, Criminal P. C. made by the Sessions Judge of Monghyr recommending that a proceeding under Sec.107, Criminal P. C. commenced by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Monghyr by his order dated 27-6-1952, be quashed, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate be directed to start a proceeding under Sec.145, Criminal P. C., if he finds that an apprehension of a breach of the peace still exists. The proceeding under Sec.107 has been directed to be drawn up against Harsi Mandal and ten others, and the learned Sessions Judge, having been moved by those persons, has made the present reference. Harsi Mandal has also filed an application in revision against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and this application has been heard along with the reference.

2. Plot No. 182 of village Matsumbha, having an area of 81.50 acres, is jungle land. In the record-of-rights, it was recorded in shamilat khewat No. 6 in the names of certain tenure-holders. In 1908, the Maharaja of Darbhanga instituted a proceeding under Sec.106, Bihar Tenancy Act, claiming a portion of plot No. 182 namely, about 42 acres, to have been wrongly recorded in the record-of-rights in the names of the tenure-holders, and further claimed that this area should have been recorded in his own name as being in his khas possession. In the month of July 1909, this dispute ended in a compromise, as a result of which it was ordered that the name of the Maharaja of Darbhanga should be recorded in respect of that area as belonging to him absolutely and being in his khas possession, and a direction was given for the correction of the entry in the re-cord-of-rights to that extent.

3. In the meantime, the Bihar Legislature passed an Act in 1946, namely, the Bihar Private Forests Act (Bihar Act 3 of 1946), which made provisions for the conservation of forests which were not vested in the Crown or in respect of which notifications and orders issued under the Indian Forests Act, 1927, were not in force. Sec.13 of Chap. III of this Act was as follows:

"If the Provincial Government is satisfied at any time that it is necessary in the public interest to apply the provisions of this Chapter to any private forest; it may constitute such a forest a private protected forest in the manner hereinafter provided."

And Sec.14 commenced as follows:

"Whenever it is proposed by the Provincial Government to constitute any private forest a private protected forest, the Provincial Government shall issue a notification (a copy of which shall be served on the landlord in the prescribed manner)............"

And thereafter followed what should be the contents of the notification which it is unnecessary to state. Sub-section (1) of Sec.21 provided that, at the time of issuing a notification under Sec.14. the Provincial Government could make an order prohibiting the cutting, collection and removal of any trees, etc. in the forest in respect of which such a notification is issued.

4. Thus, under the provisions of Ss. 14, and 21, Bihar Private Forests Act of 1946, a notification was issued on 26-9-1946, in respect Of the Matsumbha forest, of which plot No. 182 is a part, and the Maharaja of Darbhanga was named in it as the landlord.

5. In 1948, an Act, known as the Bihar Private Forests Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 9 of 1948), was passed to re-enact the Bihar Private Forests-Act of 1946 with certain modifications. Sections 13 and 14 as also Sec.21 of the Act of 1946, referred to above, were re-enacted in this Act of 1948. Accordingly, on 16-8-1948, fresh notification was issued in respect of this forest under the Act of 1648 which was similar to the one issued in 1946 under the Act of 1946.

6. The landlord mentioned in the notification, namely, the Maharaja of Darbhanga, was entitled to present an objection under Clause (C) of Sec.14 to the forest being constituted a private protected forest. Such an objection was filed, and it was disposed of under Sub-section (1) of S