Aftab Alam, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 21-2-1998 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar by which he allowed the revision filed by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation and rejected the petitioners claim of having interests over an area of 543.27 acres of land which along with other lands were notified under Sec. 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as protected forest.

2. This case has a chequered history which goes back almost 50 years. The controversy relates to the petitioners claim of raiyati interest over 543.27 acres of land which along with other tract were declared to be protected forest by a notification issued under Sec. 29 of the Act. It is important to bear in mind that the dispute relates to lands which were notified as protected forest and further that protected forest" and reserved forest are two entirely different categories under the Act and the Act has different sets of provisions in respect of the two categories. It seems that in the earlier round of litigation before this Court, this vital difference was overlooked and that led to a lot of unnecessary complications in this case.

3. The relevant facts which are admitted or which are in any case undeniable can be stated as follows. The State Government by notifications, dated 6-1-1953 and 19-1-1954 issued under Sec. 29 of the Act declared a large area of land in the old district of Champaran as protected forest. The lands covered by the two notifications also included survey plot Nos. 1,8, 9 and 10 of village Hariharpur, P.S. Ramnagar in their entirety. The petitioner claimed raiyati interests over parts of plot Nos. 1, 8 and 9 and whole of Plot No. 10, having a total area of 543.27 acres, on the basis of a settlement made by the erstwhile Ramnagar Estate under a Sada Hukumnama. The petitioner petitioned the District Magistrate asserting his raiyati interests over the disputed lands and according to the petitioner the District Magistrate sent a favourable report to the Government. The letter of the District Magistrate is not on the record. There is, however, a letter dated 4-2-1954 (Annexure-3) which was written by the Addl. Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar, Revenue Department, Patna to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Bihar. The petitioner places much reliance on this letter, the relevant portion of which is produced below:

I am directed to refer to your letter No. 8087, dated the 3rd November, 1953 in the subject noted above and to say that as recommended by you, the State Government are pleased to decide that an area of 195 acres left out of demarcation in village Hariharpur may be released to the applicants. For the remaining area of lands, they may file their claims before the Forest Settlement Officer for compensation.

4. The claim of the petitioner then came up for determination before the Forest Settlement Officer. The Forest Settlement Officer on a detailed consideration of the matter came to find and hold that the alleged settlement was a sham and Benami transaction purported to have been made without any consideration; that the Patta and the other papers produced by the petitioner were quite vague and on the basis of those documents it was not possible to connect the lands which the petitioner claimed to have been settled in her favour to the lands covered by the notification and that no portion of the protected forest was ever under cultivation or under the possession of the petitioner. On these and similar other findings, the Forest Settlement Officer by his order, dated 27-2-1962 passed in F.C. Case No. 1 of 1956-57 held that the claimants (Including the present petitioner) had no title or any manner of possession over the lands which were demarcated by pillars and, therefore, there was no question of acquisition of the disputed lands on payment of compensation to the claimants. The Forest Settlement Officer accordingly directed that the Fores