Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr.N.K. Pandey and Mr. P.K. Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioners and Mr.Alok Sinha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 3.10.1994, passed by the Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer/Forest Settlement Officer as well as the orders passed in appeals upholding the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer.

3. By means of order dated 3.10.1994, Forest Settlement Officer cancelled the petitioners’ names from the revenue record of Gata No. 1886 and issued direction to record the Forest Department over there, on the ground that the land in dispute has been settled with the Forest Department since 1952 and on 31st August, 1959. The Forest Department took over the the possession of the land in dispute, thus it did not remain with the possession of the Land Management Committee, on account of which the Land Management Committee was not empowered to lease out the land in favour of the petitioners in 1963.

4. So far as the lease holders are concerned, they had been residing far away since about 15 years ago, thus they were not entitled to get executed the lease in their favour. It is also the finding of the Forest Settlement Officer that after abolition of Jamindari, the petitioners’ who were recorded as Sirdars, did not deposit the land revenue to get declared them as tenure holders, therefore, they are not entitled to retain the possession and title over there.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the jurisdiction of the Forest Settlement Officer to take a decision as once the lease executed in their favour by the Land Management Committee is in accordance with law, it is only the Collector who is empowered to cancel the same. They also challenged the finding of the Forest Settlement Officer in regard to possession and submitted that the petitioners have been in possession over the land in dispute through out after getting executed lease in their favour. It is further submitted that after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act the Notifications under Section 6 and 20 of the Act, are yet to be issued. Thus it is stated that the proceeding of acquisition has yet to be completed.

6. The Gaon Sabha Barauli Khalilabad, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil and District Lucknow, executed lease, measuring 7 ½ bighas in favour of Dharmjeet Rai, who had been petitioners father and the land of the same area in favour of Champa Devi, petitioners’ mother. By means of order dated 14th of December, 1964, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the land was mutated in their favour. After their death the petitioner of writ petition No. 1205 (MS) of 2006 and his brother Yogendra Rai, the petitioner in writ petition No. 1554 (MS) of 2006, were recorded as tenure holders. Thus, since 1963 i.e. from execution of lease-deed the petitioners’ parents and thereafter the petitioners had been in possession and cultivating the land. On 5th of September, 1968, the Forest Settlement Officer declared the area of the land as a reserve forest by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioners’ parents filed their objection before the Forest Settlement Officer against the said declaration. The Forest Settlement Officer allowed the objection by means of order dated 7th of March, 1970, on the ground that unless lease is cancelled, the names of lease holders could not be deleted from the revenue record. The order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer based on the report of Naib Tehsildar, who acknowledged the lease as well as entries made in favour of the petitioners in the revenue record as genuine.

7. In the similar circumstances seven other persons also filed objections, which were allowed. However, the Forest Settlement Officer filed appeals before the District Judge, which were rejected, except the petitioners’ appeal, which was remanded to the Sub Divisional Offi