JUDGMENT :

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjai Goswami, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate who has appeared for the respondents.

2. This petition challenges the orders dated 30 January 1993 and 24 May 1994 passed by the Additional District Judge. The challenge itself arises in the backdrop of proceedings taken in District Sonbhadra pursuant to the procedure as evolved and laid in place by the Supreme Court in Banwasi Sewa Ashram Vs. State of U.P. And Others, 1986 4 SCC 453. The challenge arises in the context of the proposal of the State to constitute a reserved forest in accordance with the provisions made in the Indian Forest Act, 1927, 1927 Act. On the record the Court finds an order dated 15/16 May 1950, issued by the Deputy Secretary in the Government of Uttar Pradesh and addressed to the Secretary, Board of Revenue conveying to him the sanction of the Governor to the transfer of the "Dudhi Forest" from the control and administration of the Revenue Department to the Department of Forest. The document stands testimony to the fact that the Dudhi Forest was under the control and administration of the State Government from prior to the date of this communication. On 4 July 1970, the State proceeded to issue a notification under Section 4 of the 1927 Act embodying its intent to constitute a reserved forest in the district. The land over which the respondent claims interest admittedly forms part of this notification. It appears that asserting that he had been in continuance possession of this land and was also cultivating the same, he approached the Forest Settlement Officer for a declaration in respect of his status and title which was granted on 30 August 1986. In terms of this order, the Forest Settlement Officer is stated to have recognized the respondent to be a bhumidhar in possession over the land in question.

3. It is pertinent to note that in the meanwhile the Supreme Court received a letter on or about 1983 which was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The grievance which was raised in that letter was in respect of the rights of tribals and traditional forest dwellers who were deprived of their status and rights of possession and cultivation over lands which had come to be included in notifications issued under Section 4 of the 1927 Act by the State Government. The Supreme Court was apprised that tribals and other individuals in possession of the land had been deprived of their right without the statutory procedure of due enquiry and settlement of claims having been undertaken. Entertaining that challenge the Supreme Court on 22 August 1983 passed the following interim order:

"The writ petition is adjourned to October 4, 1983 in order to enable the parties to work out a formula under which claims to Adivasis or tribals in Dudhi and Robertsganj Tehsils, to be in possession of land and to regularisation of such possession may be investigated by a high powered committee with a view to reaching a final decision in regard to such claims. Meanwhile, no further encroachments shall be made on forest land nor will any of the Adivasis or tribals be permitted under colour of this order or any previous order to cut any trees and if any such attempt is made, it will be open to the State authorities to prevent such cutting of trees and to take proper action in that behalf but not so as to take away possession of the land from the Adivasis or tribals."

4. The case before the Supreme Court proceeded further and ultimately after taking into consideration the reports of the Commissioners submitted to it and the peculiar facts of the case as appearing before it, it framed detailed directions for the consideration and disposal of claims that were to be raised. Those directions as embodied in its detailed decision of 20 November 1986 rendered on that petition read thus:

"(1) So far as the lands which