Back
2012 Supreme(All) 1009
[2012(5) ADJ 584]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ARUN TANDON, J.
STATE OF U.P. ....Petitioner
Versus
IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 3825 and 3826 of 1976, decided on 13th April, 2012)
Counsel :
S.C. and Lalji Sinha for the Petitioner; V.K. Singh, Bhagwati Prasad Singh, H.P. Misra, R.N. Singh, V.K. Singh and Vivek Kumar Singh for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) (Indian) Forest Act, 1927—Section 3 (as amended in U.P.), 4 and 6—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 6, 4, 3(8), 134 and 137—Powers of State Government under Section 9—Scope for exercise of—It can constitute reserve forest in respect of three categories of land, if these lands are its property—It has proprietory rights on these lands—This power is not circumscribed by exclusion clause, as applicable to other lands, i.e., not being land for the time being comprised in any holding or in any village abadi—It means that this power is absolute—Therefore, if necessary conditions exist, State Government can constitute any land as forest land even if it is leased out—In the instant case after abolition of Zamindari, land in dispute vested in State by virtue of Section 6 of the Act, 1950—Land in question was Sirdar land—By depositing its ten times rent, its sirdar became Bhumidhar —But inspite of it, State will have proprietory rights over that land—Sirdar who became Bhumidhar of this land cannot claim to be its proprietor—As such, State Government can exercise its power under Sections 3 and 4 of Act 1927 over this land—It is admitted that only a small portion of land is being used for cultivation—Therefore, only this area notification under Section 4 of Act 1927 will not apply—But for remaining area, Act 1927 will apply—Consequently authorities concern may proceed only with regard to remaining portion of land—Relevant legal aspects—Projected.
[Paras 17, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 41, 43, 45 to 47 and 49]
(B) (Indian) Forest Act, 1927—Sections 3 and 5 (as amended in U.P.), 4 and 6—U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960—Section 10(6)—Consolidation Proceedings—During pendency of, ceiling proceedings also initiated by issuing notice under Seciton 10(6)—As both proceedings operate in different fields, proceedings under Act 1927—Will not be diluted or adversely affected—Even grant of Bhumidhari Sanad to tenure-holder—Will not be of any effect because it means only a better rights have been given to tenure-holder. [Paras 36 and 37]
Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri V.K. Chandel, learned Standing Counsel for the State-petitioner and Sri R.N.Singh, and Sri B.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf the contesting respondent, in both the writ petitions.
2. These two writ petitions raise common question of law and facts and have, therefore, been clubbed together and are being decided together by means of this common order. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3825 of 1976 has been treated to be the leading writ petition.
3. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this writ petition for quashing of the orders dated 22nd March, 1961 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Mirzapur, dated 28th October, 1961 passed by the Commissioner Varanasi as also the order dated 28th May, 1976 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Mirzapur.
4. Facts in short leading to the present writ petition as are follows:
Notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1927”), was issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 19th December, 1955, which included amongst other the areas of village Babura Raghnath Singh and Katra Tappa Upraudh, District Mirzapur. To the said notification, objections were filed by Raj Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh under Section 6 of Act, 1927. On the objection so filed, it appears that an order was passed excluding the plots in question from the limits of the proposed reserved forest on 22nd April, 1957. Subsequently, however, order dated 22nd April, 1957 was recalled under order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 20th December, 1957. As a result whereof, objections under Section 6 of Act, 1927 stood restored.
5. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh is stated to have deposited 10 times of the land revenue and to have obtained Bhumidhari Sanad of the land covered by the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1927, with reference to the provisions of U.P. Agriculture Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1949’) read with the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1950’). Immediately, after obtaining Bhumidhari Sanad, Sri Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh executed a gift deed of the area covered by notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1927 in favour of Daiya Charitable Society on 21st June, 1959.
6. The objections filed by Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh were not pressed. Thereafter Daiya Charitable Society made an application for impleadment in place of Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh, which was allowed on 22nd July, 1959 by the Forest Settlement Officer. The Daiya Charitable Society instead of pursuing the objections filed by Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh filed its own objections. The objections filed by the Daiya Charitable Society were admitted.
7. Under the order dated 22nd March, 1961, the Forest Settlement Officer framed four issues for determination, namely, (a) whether the transfer made by Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh in favour of the objector i.e. Daiya Charitable Society is valid and in accordance with law or not, (b) whether the land in dispute was a jungle or waste land on the date of vesting or not, (c) whether the objector has acquired any right over the land in dispute and (d) what relief, if any, objector is entitled?
8. The Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated 22nd March, 1961 held that since the entire land in dispute was recorded as the holding of Vishwa Nath Pratap Singh in the records of 1359 Fasli Khasara, question of its vesting after abolition of Zamindari does not arise. He went out to hold that it might be a farzi holding in the village records but this question cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 4 of Act, 1927. The plots in dispute were not entered in the list of plots transferred to Forest Department as they constituted a holding in the pr
