IMPORTANT POINT
Bhumidhari rights cannot accrue on land classified as forest or public utility land under Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Kumar, J.) :

1. Heard Shri Birendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.K. Dixit, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.

2. Present petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 31.08.2005 passed by the Additional Collector in the proceedings under Section 198 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as "Act, 1950") and the revisional order dated 10.01.2006 passed under Section 333 of the Act, 1950.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land i.e. plot No.60/6 area 0.341 hectare was allotted for agricultural purposes to the petitioner with the approval of the Pargana Adhikari on 23.03.1987 but the patta has been cancelled by passing the impugned order dated 31.08.2005, ignoring completely the fact that the land was entered as 'Phus-patwar' in the revenue records not as forest of timber trees.

4. It is further submitted that though the patta was also cancelled for Gata Nos. 136 and 673 by the present impugned order but the same has been challenged by filing a separate writ petition by the petitioner which is pending. In the present case, the only issue which has to be determined is with regard to land No.60/6 area 0.341 hectare.

5. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was entered as Phuspatwar in the revenue records prior to the Consolidation proceedings and at the time of grant of patta in favour of the petitioner in the year 1987.

6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that the land entered as forest of timber trees, no patta can be granted as the land falls under Section 132 of the Act, 1950. It is further submitted that the agricultural patta cannot be granted in favour of anyone of the land which falls under Section 132 of the Act, 1950, hence, there is no illegality in the revisional order passed under Section 333 of the Act, 1950 and the impugned order dated 31.08.2005 passed by Additional Collector, cancelling the patta in the proceedings under Section 198, Act, 1950.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, this Court has put a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner that on which basis or document the petitioner has come with a case that the patta of land allotted to the petitioner i.e. Plot No.60/6 area 0.341 hectare, is land which was entered as Phuspatwar in the revenue records, in reply he has submitted that neither is their any document in support of the said submission is available nor the same has been filed.

8. It has specifically been asked whether the land which falls under Section 132 of the Act, 1950 could be allotted for agricultural purposes under the law, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted no rights can be given on the land which falls under Section 132 of the Act, 1950.

9. He is also unable to inform as to when the consolidation proceedings started in the village to support his contention relating to patta having been granted prior to consolidation proceedings. The petitioner has also not denied and disputed the finding given for land in issue in the present case i.e. plot No.60/6 which has been entered as forest of timber trees in Akar Patra and also failed to produce any document to show that the land was entered as Phuspatwar in the revenue records.

10. If for the sake of the argument the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that land was entered as Phuspatwar in the revenue records prior to the Consolidation proceedings and at the time of grant of patta in favour of the petitioner is accepted, then at the time of consolidation in the village, the petitioner would have filed the objection under Section 9A (2) of the Act, 1953 but it is nowhere the case of the petitioner that he had ever filed the objection. The petitioner has failed to show any document regarding entry of