1. This mater has been to the Supreme Court twice. The petitioner still lingers with an issue that perhaps she might be the heir to a track of about 543.27 acres of land if it had not been declared as a forest and in the alternative she would be entitled to compensation.

2. This matter has been before the High Court on C.W.J.C.No. 1364 of 1988. The petition was allowed on a technicality that an appeal filed by the Commissioner under the Forest Act, 1927 perhaps was not maintainable as a second appeal. The order of the Commissioner was a consequential order also. But, the situation was interpreted on the record of C.W.J.C. No. 5782 of 1982, by the learned Judge deciding it that proceedings before the Commissioner were saved by virtue of a notification dated 5.11.1969, not brought to the notice of the Court earlier. The. learned Judge deciding the subsequent writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 3782 of 1988 by judgment dated 27 July, 2001 out of which this appeal arises was not inclined to grant relief that the petitioner may be entitled to a compensation on this 543. 27 acres or for that matter on 195 acres.

3. It appears that no one asked the relevant question from the petitioner whi