U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – ss.4,
117 – Indian Forest Act, 1927 – ss.3-6, 20 – U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – ss.48, 49 – Proceedings initiated by Forest Department to rectify the revenue record from the name of the lessee to that of the Forest Department – Application dismissed – Appeal also dismissed – In revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside the order dismissing the application and ordered the revenue entry of Khasra Nos.1576 and 1738 to be corrected in the name of Department of Forest – Writ petition filed by lessees, order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside – On appeal, held: Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease in favour of the appellant – Land vests in the Forest Department by virtue of notification published under a statute – It was the lessee who had to assert the title on the forest land by virtue of an agreement in writing by a competent authority but no such agreement was produced – Lessee would not be entitled to any right only on the basis of an entry in the revenue record – Revenue record is not a document of title – Order of the High Court set aside while that of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is restored. Indian Forest Act, 1927:
s.5 – Bar under – Discussed.
s.4 – Requirements of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The notification dated 11.10.1952 published in terms of Section 4 of the Abolition Act was to the effect that all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State. The extent to which uncultivated land which not vests in Gaon Samaj was mentioned in Column 5 stating that 162 acres of Village Kasmandi Khurd would not vest in Gaon Samaj. Such notification has the effect that all rights, title and interest, shall be deemed to be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of Section 117 of the Abolition Act, the State can transfer the lands by a general or special order as prescribed therein including forests to Gaon Sabha and to other local authorities. It is not the case of any of the parties that the land, which was the subject matter of notification dated 11.10.1952, was subject to any general or special orders by the State to transfer the same in favor of Gaon Sabha and/or any other local authority. Therefore, the land comprising in notification dated 11.10.1952 unequivocally vests with the State. It is thereafter that a notification dated 23.11.1955 was published in respect of 162 acres of land situated in Kasmandi Khurd. Such notification describes the land with boundaries mentioned in the notification. Thereafter, another proclamation was published under Section 6 of the Forest Act in respect of
162 acres of land including 20 bighas 13 biswas and 10 biswansi of Khasra No.1576 of Village Kasmandi Khurd. The notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act to declare any land as reserved forest could be issued if the State has proprietary rights over such land or if it is entitled to the produce thereof. The State Government has the jurisdiction to declare a protected forest if the land is the property of the Government over which proprietary rights are exercised. The land measuring 162 acres was the property of the Government in terms of the notification dated 11.10.1952. In terms of Section 4 of the Forest Act, the State Government can issue a notification to constitute any land as reserved forest. In the notification published on 23.11.1955, there was a declaration that land measuring 162 acres shall constitute forest land. Explanation (1) to Section 4 of the Forest Act clarifies that it would be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries. The notification dated 23.11.1955 has the boundaries on all four sides mentioned therein. There is no other requirement under Section 4 of the Forest Act. It is only Section
6 of the Forest Act which needs to specify the situation and limits of the proposed forest. In terms of such clause (a) of Section 6 of the Forest Act, the details of khasra numbers which were part of
162 acres find mention in the proclamation so published. Therefore, the statutory procedural requirements stand satisfied. Further, a reading of Section 20 of the Forest Act does not show that for a reserved forest, there is a requirement of publication of notification but no time limit is prescribed for publication of such notification under Section 20. Therefore, even if notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been issued, by virtue of Section 5 of the Forest Act, there is a prohibition against acquisition of any right over the land comprised in such notification except by way of a contract executed in writing by or on behalf of the Government. Since no such written contract was executed by or on behalf of the State or on behalf of the person in whom such right was vested, therefore, the Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease in favour of the appellant. [Paras 16-18, 22, 24][247-C-H; 248-A; 249-B-C; 250-C-E]
State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 194 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 191; State of Uttarakhand and Ors. v. Kumaon Stone Crushe (2018)
14 SCC 537: [2017] 11 SCR 591; Prahlad Pradhan
and Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors, (2019) 10 SCC 259 : [2019] 14 SCALE 49 – relied on.
1.2 The six yearly khatauni for the fasli year 1395 to 1400 is to the effect that the land stands transferred according to the Forest Act as the reserved forest. Such revenue record is in respect of Khasra No. 1576. It is only in the revenue record for the period 1394 fasli to 1395 fasli, name of the lessees find mention but without any basis. The revenue record is not a document of title. Therefore, even if the name of the lessee finds mention in the revenue record but such entry without any supporting documents of creation of lease contemplated under the Forest Act is inconsequential and does not create any right, title or interest over 12 bighas of land claimed to be in possession of the lessee as a lessee of the Gaon Sabha. The High Court had referred to the objections filed by the lessees under the Consolidation Act and also objections by the Forest Department. It was held by the High Court that since no objections were filed by the Forest Department earlier, therefore, the objections would be barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. Such finding recorded by the High Court is clearly erroneous. The land vests in the Forest Department by virtue of notification published under a statute. It was the lessee who had to assert the title on the forest land by virtue of an agreement in writing by a competent authority but no such agreement in writing has been produced. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to any right only on the basis of an entry in the revenue record. The order of the High Court is set aside. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.7.2004 is restored. [Paras 27-29][252-C-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.