The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 1960 notification declaring the land as 'reserved forest' was illegal and invalid, and the Bhoodan Committee had no right to transfer the land after the notification was issued.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is the second round before this Court after the Supreme Court remanded the above writ petitions vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2010 setting-aside the judgment and order dated 04.02.1998 passed by this Court.

2. Challenge, in this bunch of writ petitions, is to the orders dated 28.02.1980 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.85 of 1979 under Section 6/9 of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short “Act, 1927”) and dated 10.07.1980 passed by the District Judge, Kheri in Civil Misc. Appeal No.23 of 1980 whereby the petitioners’ objection, in respect of land bearing Plot No.75-H, situated in Village Khairati Purwa, Pargana Ferozabad, Tehsil Nighasan, District Kheri, having an area of 50 Acres, was accepted and, it was directed to exclude the said area from the Notification dated 18.10.1952, as amended on 27.04.1960, declaring 1,343.87 Acres, including the land, bearing Plot No.75-H as ‘reserved forest’.

3. The facts, which are necessary for deciding this bunch of writ petitions, are stated briefly hereunder:-

I. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short “Act, 1950”) came into force in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 26.01.1951;

II. The State Government issued Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1927, declaring an area of 1,343.87 Acres, situated in Village Khairati Purwa, Pargana Ferozabad, Tehsil Nighasan, District Kheri, including the land bearing Plot No.75-H, having an area of 50 Ares as ‘reserved forest’; and

III. The said notification was amended on 27.04.1960 and one Mr. Shyam Lal, Deputy Collector was appointed as Forest Settlement Officer for District Kheri in exercise of powers conferred by Section 17 of the Act, 1927. The Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division was appointed and empowered to hear appeals from the orders of the Forest Settlement Officer. The boundaries of the reserved forest so declared was also demarcated.

4. One Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur Singh was the recorded Sirdar in respect of 50 Acres land of Plot No. 75-H in Khatauni of 1361 Fasali.

5. It is said that the said land was recorded as Bhumidhari of Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur Singh, who donated this land to Bhoodan Committee, Kheri and Tehsildar Nighasan passed order dated 20.10.1957, directing mutation of the said land in favour of Bhoodan Committee, Kheri.

6. The respondents claimed that they had been given this land by the Bhoodan Committee, Kheri in the year 1978 and, vide order dated 30.06.1978, the Tehsildar Nighasan had directed for recording the name of the respondents in place of Bhoodan Committee.

7. On the date, when the Notification dated 27.04.1960 was issued, the respondents had no right, title or interest over land in question inasmuch, as allegedly, they had been given the land in the year 1978 by the Bhoodan Committee, which was donated by Kunwar Shivendra Bahadur Singh. After their names came to be recorded in the revenue record, they filed objections belatedly on 14.06.1979 against the Notification dated 27.04.1960. The respondents claimed to be Sirdar of the land in dispute and, claimed that the land was in their cultivatory possession.

8. Written reply, on behalf of the State, was filed on 21.08.1979 to the objections of the respondents, stating therein that the entire land in Village Khairati Purwa was forest land and, that notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, 1927 was legal and valid. The Forest Settlement Officer, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues for decision:-

a. whether the objectors were Sirdars of the land in dispute on the basis of patta/lease granted by the Bhoodan Committee and, was it their holding?

b. whether Bhoodan Committee was competent to grant patta/lease and, whether the alleged patta/lease was valid one?

c. whether the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1927 in respect of the land in dispute was illegal and invalid? If yes, then its effect?

c. whether the objections are time-barred? If so, what i