The land in dispute measuring 22.11 acres was notified as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (the Act) by the notification dated August 19, 1963. Respondents, in the appeals herein, claimed before the authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (the Consolidation Act) that they were in possession of the land and had acquired Sirdari rights. They further claimed that the land was illegally subjected to the proceedings under the Act because they had become owners of the land. Since the land was not the property of the Government-according to them-the notification declaring the land as reserved forest was illegal. The Consolidation Authorities accepted the objections of the respondents. The writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the State of U.P. - challenging the orders of the Consolidation Authorities - were dismissed by the High Court. These appeals are against the judgment of the High Court upholding the orders of the Consolidation Authorities. We may briefly notice the facts of the case. The State Government issued a notification dated March 29, 1954 declaring its intention to constitute the land in dispute a reserved forest. After disposal of the objections filed under Section 6 read with Section 9 of the Act and the finalisation of the appeals under Section 17 of the Act, a notification dated August 19, 1963 declaring the land in dispute to be reserved for forest was issued. In the revenue records the respondents were recorded as Sirdari - holders of the land. The land was also recorded as a part of the forest department khata.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respondents did not raise any objection/claim before the Forest Settlement Officer under the Act. There is nothing on the record to show that any objection or claim was ever made by the respondents before the authorities under the Act. Consolidation operations commenced in the area on April 13, 1966. The respondents claimed before the Consolidation Authorities that they had acquired Sirdari rights in the land on the basis of their long possession. It was also claimed that the land in dispute was neither forest land nor waste land and as such in terms of Section 3 of the Act it could not be notified as reserved forest. Before the authorities under the Consolidation Act, the State of U.P. pleaded that the land in dispute stood vested in the State by he notification dated October 11, 1952 issued under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1951 (the Abolition Act). In the writ petition before the High Court the State Government averred as under:
"That in the objections filed by
opposite party No.4 the question
that the land in dispute did not
vest in the State Government, was
not raised: nor was it pleaded that
the State Government had no
authority to issue a notification
under section 4 of the Act as the
land in dispute was not covered by
section 3 of the Act. No issue on
these points was framed by the
Consolidation Officer."
The Consolidation Officer allowed the claim of the respondents and came co the conclusions that the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Act did not affect the rights of the respondents in the land in dispute. He, however, dismissed the claim of respondent Husain. The Settlement Officer upheld the claims of the respondents and dismissed the appeals filed by the State. He also dismissed the appeal filed by Husain. The revision petition filed by the State Government were dismissed by the Dy. Director Consolidation. However, the revision petition filed by Husain was allowed and he was also given relief in similar terms as the other respondents were given by the Consolidation Authorities. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the State of U.P. on file following reasonings :
"Para 2 of the writ petition states
that 0.53 acres of land in village
Asauwa, tehsil and district Kheri
was vested in the State at the time
of abolition of the Zamindari
through notification no.617/XIV
dated 11.10.1952. The allegation is
a picture of vagueness. It has not
been stated as to under which
provision of law did this vesting
take place. The U.P.Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act came
into operation on 1st July, 1952.
Apparently the notification
mentioned in this paragraph was not
issued under the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act. A
copy of the notification has not
been annexed to the writ petition.
In my opinion no reliance can be
placed on paragraph 2 of the writ
petition to sustain the plea that
the land in dispute was the
property of the Government or that
the Government had proprietary
rights in it. The counter-affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondent
disputes that the plots of which he
was in cultivatory possession had
vested in the State. In the
circumstances the finding that the
land in dispute was not covered by
section 3 Forest Act could not be
characterised as erroneous in law.
The consequential proceedings
emanating on the notification under
section 4 and culminating in the
notification under section 20 were
without jurisdiction and void
because the land did not fall
within the purview of section 3 of
the Act. Section 4 of the Act
authorises the State Government to
constitute a reserved forest only
on land which is covered by section
3 and no other. If in any
particular case the land is not
covered by section 3, the
notification under section 4 and
subsequent provisions would confer
no jurisdiction to validly
constitute it as reserved forest. A
tenure-holder need not waste his
time and money in participating in
such void proceedings. It is not a
case where the consolidation
authorities have gone behind the
orders passed in proceedings
consequent to the issue of
notification under section 4. This
is a case where the consolidation
authorities have examined the title
of tenure-holders. They have
further examined, in my opinion
rightly, whether the title of these
persons was established or
defeated. The State Government
asserted that their title had
extinguished by virtue of section
20 of the Act. In order to test
this the consolidation authorities
could validly go into the question
whether the proceedings under the
Indian Forest Act were totally
without jurisdiction. They were not
testing the correctness of the
order passed disposing of the
objections. They were trying to
find whether the proceedings were
at all recognizable. The
proceedings being totally void, the
consolidation authorities were
bound to hold that the title of the
objectors was not extinguished
thereby."
We are of the view that the High Court felt into patent error in appreciating the provisions of the Act and the Abolition Act. It is not disputed that the Abolition Act applied to the land in dispute and, therefore, the State was the proprietor of the land and the respondents, even if they were Sirdars, would still be tenure holders.
This Court in Mahendra Lal Jaini, Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1019, dealt with an identical question. Mahendra Lal Jaini, in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, contended before this Court that he being a Bhumidar in possession, the provisions of the Act (The Forest Act, 1927) would not apply to the said land. Repelling the contention this Court held that though Bhumidars have higher rights than Sirdars and Asamis, they were still tenure holders under the State which was proprietor of the land in the areas to which the Abolition Act applied. It was further held that, even if it was presumed that the petitioner Mahendra Lal Jaini was a Bhumidar, he could not claim to be the proprietor of the land. It was held that the provisions of the Act would be applicable to the land in dispute. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant part from the judgment of this Court in Mahendra Lal’s case :
"It is, however, urged on behalf of
the petitioner that he claims to be
the proprietor of this land as a
bhumidhar because of certain
provisions in the Act. There was no
such proprietary right as
bhumidhari right before the
Abolition Act. The Abolition Act
did away with all proprietary
rights in the area to which it
applied and created three classes
of tenure by S.129; bhumidhar,
sirdar and asami, which were
unknown before. Thus bhumidhar,
sirdar and asami are all tenure-
holders under the Abolition Act and
they hold their tenure under the
State in which the proprietary
right vested under S.6. It is true
that bhumidhars have certain wider
rights in their tenures as compared
to sirdars; similarly sirdars have
wider rights as compared to asamis,
but nonetheless all the three are
mere tenure-holders - with varying
rights - under the State which is
the proprietor of the entire land
in the State to which the Abolition
Act applied. It is not disputed
that the Abolition Act applies to
the land in dispute and therefore
the State it the proprietor of the
land in dispute and the petitioner
even if he were a bhumidhar would
still be a tenure-holder...... The
petitioner therefore even if he is
presumed to be a bhumidhar cannot
claim to be a proprietor to whom
Chap. II of the Forest Act does not
apply, and therefore Chap. V-A, as
originally enacted, would not apply
: ( see in this connection,
Mst.Govindi v. State of Uttar
Predesh, AIR 1952 All 88.) As we
have already pointed out Ss. 4 and
11 give power for determination of
all rights subordinate to those of
a proprietor, and as the right of
the bhumidhar is that of a tenure-
holder, subordinate to the State,
which is the proprietor of the land
in dispute, it will be open to the
Forest Settlement Officer to
consider the claim made to the land
in dispute by the petitioner, if he
claims to be a bhumidhar."
It is thus obvious that a person who was holding the land as Sirdar was not vested with proprietary rights under the Abolition Act. He was a tenure holder and the proprietary rights vested with the State. The High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in assuming that by virtue of their status as Sirdars the respondents were proprietors of the land. The State being the proprietor of the land under the Abolition Act it was justified in issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
The nature of the land - whether covered by Section 3 of the Act or not - could only be determined on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act which was issued on March 29, 1954. Neither the Consolidation Authorities nor the High Court have gone into the question as to what was the nature of the land on the relevant date. The Consolidation Authorities recorded their findings in the year 1968-69. They were wholly oblivious of the nature of the land 14-15 years back in the year 1954.
The crucial question for consideration, however, is whether the Consolidation Authorities have the jurisdiction to go behind the notification under Section 20 of the Act and deal with the land which has been declared and notified as a reserve forest under the Act. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the scheme of Chapter II of the Act. Section 3 provides that the State Government may constitute any forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights or to the whole or any part of the forest produce to which the Government is entitled a reserved forest. Section 4 provides for the issue of a notification declaring the intention of the Government to constitute a reserved forest. Section 5 bars accrual of forest rights in the area covered by the notification under Section 4 after the issue of the notification. Section 6, inter alia, gives power to the Forest Settlement Officer to issue a proclamation fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation and requiring every person claiming any right mentioned in Section 4 or Section 5 within such period, either to present to the Forest Settlement Officer a written notice specifying or to appear before him, and state the nature of such right and the amount and particulars of the Compensation (if any) claimed in respect thereof. Section 7 gives power to the Forest Settlement Officer to investigate the objections. Section 8 prescribes that the Forest Settlement Officer shall have the same powers as a civil court has in the trial of a suit. Section 9, inter alia, provides for the extinction of rights where no claim is made under Section 6. Section 11(1) lays down that in the case of a claim to a right in or over any land, other than a right of way or right of pasture, or a right to forest produce or water course, the Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part. In the event of admitting the right of any person to the land, the Forest Settlement Officer, under Section 11(2), can either exclude such land from the limits of the proposed forest or come to an agreement with the owner thereof for the surrender of his rights or proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1884. Section 17 provides for appeal from various order under the Act and Section 18(4) for revision before the State Government. When all the proceedings provided under Section 3 to 19 are over the State Government has to publish a notification under Section 20 specifying definitely the limits of the forest which is to be reserved and declaring the same to be reserved from the date fixed by the notification.
It is thus obvious that the Forest Settlement Officer has the powers of a civil court and his order is subject to appeal and finally revision before the State Government. The Act is a complete code in itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring and notifying a reserve forest. Once a notification under Section 20 of the Act declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person come to an end and are no longer available. The notification is binding on the Consolidation Authorities in the same way as a decree of the civil court. The respondents could very well file objections and claims including objection regarding the nature of the land before the Forest Settlement Officer. They did not file any objection or claim before the authorities in the proceedings under the Act. After the notification under Section 20 of the Act, the respondents could not have raised any objections qua the said notification before the Consolidation Authorities. The Consolidation Authorities were bound by the notification which had achieved finality.
We, therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and also the orders of the Consolidation Authorities to the extent they are against the interest of the State. We hold that the land in dispute was rightly declared and notified as a reserve forest and the respondents have no rights or claim or any interest in the said land. No costs.