The court upheld the State's authority to declare land as reserved forest, emphasizing that tenure-holders cannot claim proprietary rights over such land post-abolition of Zamindari.

JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri U. S. Sahai Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arya Shreshtha Tiwari, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. Briefly stated, the facts pleaded in the Writ Petition are that the State Government had issued a notification dated 19.04.1954 under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1927 for constituting certain lands as a reserved forest. The petitioner filed objections before the Forest Officer stating that he was the Seerdar of the land in question and the erstwhile Zamindar Rani Kaneez Bakar had executed a lease-deed in her favour on 06.05.1951 for cultivation purpose. Some Mahuatrees were existing on the land in dispute, which had been sold to the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.2,000/-.

3. The Forest Settlement Officer passed an order dated 13.04.1957 stating that the owner of the land had executed a patta in favour of the petitioner on 06.07.1951, hence the proceedings were dropped and the land was released in favour of the lessee.

4. The Forest Department challenged the order by filing an appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded.

5. After remand, the petitioner’s objections were turned down by means of an order dated 13.05.1959. The petitioner again filed an appeal, which was dismissed by means of order dated 26.09.1961. The petitioner filed a revision before the State Government, which was referred to the Tribunal/District Judge, Gonda and was registered as Civil Revision No. 37 of 1973. The District Judge allowed the revision by means of an order dated 24.08.1973 and the matter was again remanded to the Forest Settlement Officer.

6. After remand, the Forest Settlement Officer passed an order dated 23.06.1982, whereby the petitioner’s objection has been rejected again. The petitioner filed a Misc. Revenue Appeal No.11 of 1982 which was rejected by means of a judgment and order dated 28.02.1985 passed by the District Judge, Gonda.

7. The petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 23.06.1982 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Gonda in Case No.1129 under Section 6 of the Forest Act and the judgment and order dated 28.03.1985 passed by the District Judge, Gonda in Misc. Revenue Appeal No.11 of 1982.

8. The State has filed a counter affidavit denying that any lease had actually been executed in favour of the petitioner by ex-Zamindar Rani Kaneez Bakar on 14.07.1951. Sale of Mahua trees by Rani Kaneez Bakar to the petitioner has also been denied.

9. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit and a copy of a registered lease-deed dated 14.07.1951 executed by Rajkumari Kaneez Bakar in favour of the petitioner Smt. Shanti Devi granting lease-hold rights in respect of 123.95 acres land situated in Mauja Pure Datai, Mohal Birhara, Pargana and District Gonda along with the trees existing on it on a rental of Rs.374 and 6 aanna per year with effect from year 1358 Fasli. It is recorded in the lease-deed that the possession of the land was handed over to Smt. Shanti Devi with effect from 20.01.1951 and mutation of her name had also been carried out. The lease-deed further states that the Lessee will have all the rights generation after generation in respect of the leased land and the trees existing thereon and that the rent would be payable in two installments, half after Kharif crop in the month of Kwaar and half after Rabi crop in the month of Vaishakh. This lease-deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar on 07.09.1951.

10. It has further been stated in the rejoinder affidavit that Smt. Shanti Devi has paid Rs.240.63 towards lease-rent through a treasury challan, a copy whereof has been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit.

11. The State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the relevant extract of Khatauni for the yea