Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Inspite of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 — Panna Lal. Notices were issued to him through registered post with A.D. on 1.11.2008 as per office report of the said date. However, he did not engage any counsel.

2. The first order challenged through this writ petition was passed by Forest Settlement Officer (F.S.O.)/Deputy Collector, Renukoot, Mirzapur in case No. 338 Panna Lal v. Forest Department. The land in dispute is comprised in plot No. 2845 area 5 bigha situate in village Ranhaur. The land in dispute alongwith other lands was notified under Section-4 of Forest Act 1927. Panna Lal filed objections under Section-6 of the Act claiming that he was bhoomidhar of the land in dispute hence it must be excluded from the limits of the proposed forest. His specific case was that he had acquired title on the basis of possession. The case was decided by F.S.O. On 31.3.1989. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the said judgment it is mentioned that the land in dispute was entered as jungle in the revenue records (khata No. 9). Panna Lal had claimed that he was in possession for 15 to 16 years. However, from perusal of the revenue record FSO found that his possession was only four years old. F.S.O. also noted that Panna Lal at one stage stated that his possession was 10-12 years old and at another stage he stated that possession was 15-16 years old hence his case was extremely doubtful. Accordingly, objections filed by Panna Lal were dismissed. Against the said order Panna Lal respondent No. 3 filed the appeal which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 1385 of 1989. Additional District Jude, Pipri, Sonebhadra dismissed the appeal on 11.6.1991 holding that Panna Lal - appellant had stated that his possession was before 1385 fasli however, he could not prove that and as was mentioned in proforma-9, at the time of survey his possession was not found and land was found not capable of agriculture. Copy of the said judgment is Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

3. In respect of forest land situate in Tehsil Dudhi and Robertsganj which were initially included in District Mirzapur and are now in District Sonebhadra Supreme Court passed several orders one of which was reported in Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P., AIR 1987 SC 374. Pursuant to the directions given by the Supreme Court, Section 131-A was added in U.P. Zamandari Abolition & Land Reforms Act in the year 1987 first paragraph of which is quoted below :

“131-A. Bhumidhari rights in Gaon Sabha or State Government land in certain circumstances.—Subject to the provisions of Section 132 and Section 133-A, every person in cultivatory possession of any land, vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 or belonging to the State Government, in the portion of district Mirzapur south of Kaimur range, other than the land notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, before the 30th day of June, 1978, shall be deemed to have become a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights of such land”

(proviso not relevant)

(30.6.1978 is last date of 1385 Fasli)

It appears that Panna Lal did not pursue the matter further. However, petitioner filed application for recall of order passed by the appellate Court which was registered as Misc. Case No. 19 of 1992 and was rejected on 31.3.1992, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

4. Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to this writ petition have been challenged through this writ petition. In the order dated 31.3.1992 passed on the application of the petitioner appellate Court held that third party had no right to file recall or review petition.

In the above authority the Supreme Court noted in para-6 that:

“Admittedly there had been no survey and settlement in these Tehsils.” (Tehsil Dudhi and Robertsganj)

Under para 10(2) certain directions were issued