Revenue Court holds jurisdiction for declarations against specific land claims despite conflicting prior orders.

1. This petition has been filed by Madan Gopal Singh under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The material facts are these :
A notification was issued under S.4 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on 29-3-1954 by the State Government proposing to constitute lands in village Baghauwa, Pergana Balia, Tahsil Nighasan, District Kheri as reserved forest. The petitioner's father Jagat Ram claimed to be a sirdar of plots Nos. 21 and 15 comprising an area of 75-50 acres in the said village and he filed an objection under S.6 of the Act on 3-7-1954 claiming sirdari rights over 75.50 acres in the said village. He challenged validity of the land sought to be constituted as a reserved forest. It was stated that from the demarcation map prepared by the Forest Department it appears that about half of the objector's land was included in the notification. On 24-4-1956 the claim of the petitioner's father was accepted by the Forest Settlement Officer and he was held to be a sirdar of 75.50 acres. But the Forest Settlement Officer did not enter into an adjudication of the precise area of plots Nos. 21 and 15 which was covered by the notification. Annexure 2 of the writ petition is a copy of the order of the Forest Settlement Officer. Against this order the Forest Department filed an appeal under S.17 of the Act which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner on 12-4-1958 and the claim of the petitioner's father that he was sirdar of plots Nos. 21 and 15 was rejected. The said appeal was decided behind the back of the petitioner's fathers on 16-12-60 petitioner's father filed a suit under S.229 - B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U. P. Act 1 of 1951) claiming a declaration that he continued to be a sirdar of 40 acres of land out of plot No. 21 on the basis that so much area was not coyered by the notification issued under S.4 of the Act. To that suit the State Government and the Gaon Samaj were impleaded as defendants. The suit was not contested by the defendants and proceeded ex parte. The Judicial Officer deciding the suit held that 40 acres of plot No. 21 was not included in the notification dated 29-3-1954 issued under S.4 of the Act and declared him to be sirdar and the at area by an order dated 3-5-1961 recorded name of petitioner's father was No. 2nd as sirdar over 40 acres of plot ? of the said village but subsequently of 17-5-1963 in the same Khetauni 77 acres of plots Nos. 21 and 15 were recorded in the name of the Forest Department; whereupon the petitioner's father on 8-1-1964 applied for correction of Khetauni to accordance with the order of the Judicial Officer dated 3-5-1961. To that application the Forest Department was also impleaded as a defendant. The application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned on 15-10-1965 holding that the declaratory decree passed by the Judicial Officer under S.229 - B of U. P. Act 1 of 1951 was without jurisdiction, the Deputy Commissioner by his order of 12-4-1958 passed under S.18 of the Act having already held that the petitioner's father did not possess sirdari rights. Annexure 7 is copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. This order was challenged by the petitioner and his brother opposite party No. 7 in a revision under S.15 of the Land Revenue Act which was summarily dismissed by the Commissioner by an order (Annexure 8 of the writ petition) dated 16-11-1966. Thereupon a revision filed before the Board of Revenue was also rejected by it (vide Annexure 9 of the writ petition) by an order dated 20-12-1966. It is therefore praye