The Forest Act provisions, specifically Sections 4, 6, and 20, have implications on land disputes, and the finality of orders under the Forest Act bars adjudication of claims in subsequent proceedings.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioners.

( 2 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the order dated 25. 6. 2001 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barellly, order dated 15. 12. 2000 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation Camp at Shahjahanpur and the order dated 25. 1. 1973 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Shahjahanpur. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the orders passed in revision Nos. 99, 108 and 109.

( 3 ) FACTS of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the writ petition are ; the dispute relates to gata No. 41-M (15. 00, acres) of Khata No. 103 ; Gata No. 2-M (8. 50 acres) of Khata No. 262 and Gata No. 2-M (6. 25 acres) of Khata No. 41 situated in village Gahloioya, Paragana and tehsil Powayan, district Shahjahanpur. A notification under Section 4 of Indian Forest Act, 1927. (hereinafter referred to as the Forest Act) was issued by the State Government proposing the area therein to be declared as reserved forest on 27. 3. 1954. The concerned Sub-Divisional officer was appointed as forest settlement officer. Further, a notification under Section 6 of the forest Act was issued on 29. 6. 1963. Lastly, notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act was issued on 3. 8. 1966 declaring the area included therein as reserved forest. Petitioners have stated that the Gaon Sabha executed lease in favour of one Tara Singh of plot No. 41-M on 5. 4. 1964. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and Mahendra Singh (predecessor-in interest of petitioners No. 3, 4 and 5) claimed to have taken a sale deed dated 7. 6. 1965 from said Tara Singh and others regarding the plot No. 41-M area 15. 00 acres and it is stated in the writ petition that their names were also mutated. Plot No. 2-M area 8. 50 acres of Khata No. 262 was claimed to be holding of one charan Singh and Ratan Singh who sold the same in favour of the petitioner No. 6 by registered deed dated 28. 9. 1966. Similarly, plot No. 2-M (6. 25 acres) of Khata No. 41 was claimed to be holding of one Daya Ram who sold it in favour of the petitioner No. 7.

( 4 ) CONSOLIDATION operations in village in question started in accordance with the provisions of u. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, in which the objections were filed by the vendors and some of the petitioners. It was claimed in the objection that the name of the petitioners have been rightly recorded on the basis of the various sale-deeds and lease deeds and the area is wrongly included in the Khatas of the Forest Department from which Khata the area should be scored of. Tara Singh the vendor who executed the sale deed in favour of some of the petitioners had filed objections that the names of vendors be recorded. The consolidation officer rejected the objections of the petitioners. The consolidation officer took the view that the notification of the land was issued under Sections 4, 6 and 20 of the Forest Act in which after expiry of time for filing objections the land was declared as reserved forest and the objectors did not raise any claim before the forest settlement officer, hence their objections cannot be accepted. The consolidation officer further held that after publication of notification under Section 20 of the forest Act, the consolidation courts had no jurisdiction to delete the name of the forest department. Appeals were filed by the petitioners along with several other persons against the order of the consolidation officer which were dismissed on 15. 12. 2000. Several revisions were also filed against the order of the settlement officer of consolidation which too were dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 25. 6. 2001. The Deputy Director of consolidation also took the view that in view of the notification under Sections 4, 6 and 20 of the Forest Act declaring the land as reserved forest no rights can be given to the objector either by lease or sale deed. It was further held that the objectors ought