Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 1067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Mahesh Chandra Saxena And Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P., Thru. Collector, Kheri And Others - Respondents
Writ - B No. 288 of 2024
Decided On : 16-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Nagendra Kumar Khare, Mohammad Aslam Khan, Mohan Singh.

Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 20(b) - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 20-A - Dispute over land ownership - Petitioners claimed rights based on entries in revenue records from 1356 and 1359 Fasli, asserting they were recorded occupants - Court found entries were fabricated and did not confer rights, as the land was designated as forest land under the management of the Forest Department - The court emphasized that fraudulent entries cannot establish legal rights. (Paras 53-54)

(B) Forest Conservation - The court reiterated that forest land is public utility land and cannot be transferred or claimed by individuals without proper legal basis - The principle of 'Nemo dat quod non habet' applies, meaning one cannot give what they do not have. (Paras 51-54)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged orders regarding land recorded as forest, asserting their rights based on historical entries in revenue records. The court found these entries to be fraudulent and not legally valid. (Paras 1-24)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the entries relied upon by the petitioners were fabricated and did not confer any rights, as the land was under the control of the Forest Department. (Paras 53-54)

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the revenue entries and whether the petitioners could claim rights over the land designated as forest. (Paras 23-24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights and emphasized the importance of verifying the authenticity of such entries. (Paras 51-54)

Result: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of the lower authorities. (Para 56)

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate with Advocate(s) Sri Nagendra Kumar Khare, appeared for petitioners. Advocate(s) Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey and Sri Dev Prakash Mishra, appeared for the State.

2. By means of present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 10.04.2023 passed by respondent No. 2-District Magistrate/District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 2050/2022, Computerized Case No.D202210430002050 (Mahesh Chandra Saxena and Others vs. Prabaghiya Vanadhikari and Others) as also the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by respondent No.3-Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh Second, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No. 79/68 (Mahesh Chandra Saxena and Others vs. Prabaghiya Vanadhikari and Others).

3. After hearing the learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and learned counsel for the State, the judgment was reserved on 18.03.2024. On this date, learned counsel for the parties prayed for liberty to submit their written submissions alongwith some relevant documents, for which they were permitted.

4. The written submissions dated 01.04.2024 signed by Mohd. Aslam Khan, Advocate was submitted on behalf of petitioners. Alongwith written submission following have been annexed:-

(ii) Copy of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Avadh and Others vs. Ram Das and Others (2008) 8 SCC 58. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering the Section 20 of the Act of 1950 including Explanation III therein as also the entry in the Khatauni for the year 1356 to 1366 Fasli (1949 to 1959 A.D.) interfered in the judgment of the High Court and the revisional Court and affirmed the decision of the Consolidaton Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation and provided rights to the appellants therein.

(iii) The copy of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jasraj Inder Singh vs. Hemraj Multanchand, (1977) 2 SCC 155. This judgment relates to order of remand and according to this, the observations made in the remand order should be complied with by the authority to whom the matter was remanded back.

(iv) Copy of the United Provinces Private Forests Act, 1948 (Uttar Pradesh Act No. 4 of 1949).

(v) Copy of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Mohd. Karrar Ali and 2 others vs. the State of U.P., AIR 1954 All 753. According to this pronouncement, Uttar Pradesh Private Forests Act, 1948 has no application to the land other than forests.

(vi) Copy of Para A-124 of Uttar Pradesh Land Records Manual.

(vii) Copy of Chapter II of Indian Forests Act, 1927 (in short "Act of 1927") which includes Section 20-A as applicable in Uttar Pradesh.

(viii) Copy of the counter affidavit filed by the State in Writ Petition No. 174 (M/S) of 2001 (Mahesh Chandra Saxena & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others) annexing therewith the copies of Khatuani of 1356 Fasli (1949 A.D.) and 1359 (1952 A.D.) Fasli. The copy of counter affidavit has been filed to establish that in 1359 Fasli (1952 A.D.) there was no cutting.

(a) It would be apt to indicate that in the Khatauni of 135