SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 1238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Abdul Moin, J.
U.P. Forest Dept. Thru. Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Lko. And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Mrs. Harcharan Kaur Gill And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 6208 of 2021
Decided On : 27-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Lalta Prasad Misra
For the Respondent: Jitendra Saksena, Agendra Sinha, Charandeep Singh Bedi, Mandeep Kumar Mishra

The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the State Government to reserve forest land or wasteland under Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the consequences of vesting land in the State Government under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act, 1950.

Headnote:

Forest Land - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 4, Section 6, Section 117 - The judgment discusses the issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the vesting of land in the State Government, and the setting aside of notifications under Section 117 of the Act, 1950 and Section 4 of the Act, 1927. The court analyzes the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the power of the State Government to reserve forest land or wasteland and the consequences of vesting land in the State Government.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of forest land notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The respondents filed an appeal challenging the rejection of their objections/claim by the Forest Settlement Officer, which led to the appellate authority setting aside the order and the notifications issued under Section 117 of the Act, 1950 and Section 4 of the Act, 1927.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notifications under Section 4 of the Act, 1927 were correctly issued, and the land stood vested in the State Government. It rejected the arguments regarding the agricultural nature of the land and the absence of a proclamation under Section 6 of the Act, 1927. The court also held that the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the notifications.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of notifications under Section 4 of the Act, 1927, the vesting of land in the State Government, and the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to set aside the notifications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act, 1950, and Section 3 of the Act, 1927 to determine the validity of the notifications and the vesting of land in the State Government. It also cited precedents to support its findings on the jurisdiction of the appellate authority.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and a writ of certiorari was issued quashing the order passed by the respondent no. 6.

JUDGMENT :

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioners is taken on record.

2. Shri Charandeep Singh Bedi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he does not intend to file objections to the same.

3. As such the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

4. Heard Shri Ramesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mandeep Kumar Mishra and Shri Charandeep Singh Bedi for the respondents no. 2 to 5.

5. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:

    "(A) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.09.2020 (Annexure No. 1) to the writ petition passed by the opposite party no. 6 in M.C.A. No. 55/2017 Smt. Harcharan Kaur Gill and others vs Forest Settlement Officer and others.

(B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to commanding the opposite parties not to compel to the petitioners to enforce the order dated 23009.2020 (Annexure No. 1) to the writ petition passed by the opposite party no. 6 in M.C.A. No. 55/2017 Smt. Harcharan Kaur Gill and others vs Forest Settlement Officer and others."

6. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case set forth by the petitioner-State is that a notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1927) was issued on 23.11.1955, a copy of which is part of annexure 5 to the petition (page 321). The said notification pertained to notifying various chunks of land in various tehsils of Lucknow District as reserve forest. So far as the present controversy is concerned, the land pertains to Pargana Bijnor, Tehsil Lucknow and the area notified as reserve forest was 202 acres. A proclamation was also issued under Section 6 of the Act, 1927 which is disputed by the respondents. It is contended that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of Major Jai Singh Gill. A notification under Section 117 of the Act, 1950 was also issued on 11.10.1952 giving particulars of land including the land of the respondents which was to vest in the gram sabha. The said notification pertained to various districts including Dehradun, Saharanpur, Muzaffarnagar etc. Around the year 1995, a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1950) was filed by Major Jai Singh Gill praying for declaration that the land in dispute belongs to him. The suit was dismissed. Subsequently, a revision under Section 333 of the Act 1950 was filed and the revisional court remanded back the matter to the authority concerned. Thereafter, in the suit under Section 229-B, an application under Section 229-D of the Act, 1950 was filed by Major Gill which was rejected. Again, a revision was filed which was rejected which compelled Major Jai Singh Gill to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 404 (MS) of 2012 in re: Major Jai Singh Gill vs State of U.P. and others. This Court vide the order dated 19.01.2012, a copy of which is part of annexure 2 to the petition (page 160) gave liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the Forest Settlement Officer and the said officer was required to decide the matter on merit according to rules and in good conscience.

7. In pursuance thereof, Major Jai Singh Gill filed his objections/claim before the Forest Settlement Officer in the year 2012, copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition under Section 6 & 7 of the Act, 1927. The competent authority, vide order dated 04.03.2017, a copy of which is part of annexure 2 to the petition (page 185) rejected the objections/claim. The respondents, being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act, 1927 which was registered as M.C.A. 55/2017 in re: Smt. Harcharan Kaur Gill and others vs Forest Settlement Officer and others. The appellate authority vide the order impugned dated 23.09.2020, a copy of which is ann

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top