STATE OF U.P.versusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

                      STATE OF U.P.                                             A
                           v.
         DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

                               JULY 8, 1996

  (KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]                          B

      Indian Forest Act, 1927-Section 2(}-Notification of land as rese1ved
forest-A person holding the land as Sirda1-Not vested with proplietory 1ights
under U.P.. Consolidation of Holdings Act-State being proprietor of the
la1ul-Notification issued u/s 4 valid-Jurisdiction of Consolidation             c
Autholities to go behind Oie notification.

      A notification dated 19.8.1963 declaring the land in dispute to be
reserved for forest was issued u/s 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The
respondents recorded as Sirdari-holders of the land claimed before the
authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 that they        D
were in possession of the land and had acquired Sirdari rights and because
they had become owners of the land, the land was illegally subjected to the
proceedings under the Act and that 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      E
Constitution filed by the State challenging the orders of the Consolidation
Authorities were dismissed by the High Court, upholding the orders of the
Consolidation Authorities, while holding that by virtue of their status as
Sirdari the respondents were proprietors of the land. Hence these appeals.

      The appellants contended that the respondents did not raise any           F
objection/claim before the authorities under the Act.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court

      HELD : A person who was holding the land as Sirdar was not vested
with proprietory rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land             G
Reforms Act. He was a tenure holder and the proprietory rights vested
with the State. The State being the proprietor of the land under the
Abolition Act it was justified in issuing the notification under Section 4 of
the Indian Forest 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 H
                                      191
    192                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A under Section 4 of the Act which was issued on March 29, 1954. The Forest
  Settlement Ollicer has the powers of a civil court and his order is subject
  to appeal and finally revision befor" 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 l!nder Section 20 of the Act
B declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all the rights in the
  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 Otlicer. They did not file any objection or
C 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. [196-F-G, 198-B-D]
D         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 744-759
    of 1977.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.76 of the Allahabad High
    Court in W.P. Nos. 811 and 856-879 of 1970.
E
          R.C. Verma and R.B. Misra for the Appellant.

          K.P. Bagaria for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
           KULDIP SINGH, J. 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 nutification dated August 19, 1963. Respondents in the
    appeals herein, claimed before the authorities under the U.P. Consolida-
    tion of Holdings Act 1953 (the Consolidation Act) that they were in
G   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
H   Authorities accepted the objections of the respondents. The writ petitions
    STAIE v. DY. DmECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 193

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Stal!' of U.P. - A
challenging the orders of the Consolidation Authorities - were dismissed
by the High Court. These appeals arc 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 con-        B
stitute 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         C
the land. The land was also recorded as a part of the forest department
Kha ta.

       Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the respon-
dent 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          D
or claim was ever n1adc by the respondents· before 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          E
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 the notification dated October 11, 1952 issued under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1951 (the Abolition Act). Jn
the writ petition before the High Court the State Government averred as           F
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 raisod: nor was it pleaded that the State Government had no           G
        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 to the conclusions that the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of H
    194                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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 petitions filed by the State Government were dismissed by the Dy.
    Director Consoli<lation. However, the revision petition filt;<l by Husain was
B
    allowed and he was also given relief in similar terms as the other respon-
    dents were given by the Consolidation Authorities. The High Court dis-
    missed the writ petitions filed by the State of U.P. on the following
    reasonings:

c           "Para 2 of the writ petition slates that 0.53 acres of land in village
            Asauwa, tehsil and district kheri was vested in tbe 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 slateu as to under which provision of law did this vesting
D           take place. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
            came into operation on ht July, 1952. Apparently the notification
            mentioned in this paragraph was not issued under the U.P. Zamin-
            dari 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
E           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 finuing that the land in dispute was not
F           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
G           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 \Vaste his time and money in participating
H           in such void proceedings. It is not a case where the consolidation
    STATE v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [KULDIP SINGH, J.) 195

         authorities have gone behind the orders passed in proceedings          A
         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 [urther examined, in my opinion
         rightly, whether the title of these persons was established or
         defeated. The State Government asserted that their title had ex-
                                                                                B
         tinguished by virtue of section 20 of the Act. In order to test this
         the consolidation authorities could validity 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      c
         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 fell into patent error in
appreciating the provisions of the Act and the Abolition Act. It is not         D
disputed that the Abolition Act applied to the land in dispute and, there-
fore, 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 v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Othe1>,
AIR (1963) Supreme Court 1019, dealt with an identical question.                E
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 Assamis, they were still tenure holders     F
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:       G

        "It is, however, urged on behalf of the petitioner that he claims to
        be the proprietor of this land a& 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 H
    196                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           away with all proprietary rights in the area to which it applied and
            created three classes of tenure by S.129; bh:imidhar, 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
B           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
c           applies to the land in dispute and therefore the State is the
            proprietor of the land in dispute and the petitioner even if he were
            a bhurnidhar 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
D
            apply: (see in this connection, Mst. Govindi v. State of Uttar
            Pradesh, 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
E            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
F   was not vested \vith proprietary rights under the Abolition Act. He was a
    tenure holder and the proprietory 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.
G
          The nature of the land - whether covered by Section 3 of the Act or
    not - could only be determined on the date of notification under Section 4
    of the Act which was issued on March 29, 1954. Neither the Consolidation
    Authorities not the High Court have gone into the question as to what was
H   the nature of the land on the relevant date. The Consolidation Authorities
    STATE v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [KULDIP SINGH,J.] 197

recorded their findings in the year 1968-69. They were wholly oblivious of A
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 behiud the notifica-
tion under Section 20 of the Act and deal with the land which has been B
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 Govern-
ment 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 c
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 D
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. E
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 F
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 G
Acquisition Act, 1884. Section 17 provides for appeal from various orders
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 H
    198                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A same to be reserved from the date fJXed by the notification.
         It is thus obvious that the Forest Settlement Officer has the power
  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
B 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 ob-
C jection regarding the nature of the land before the Forest Settlement
  Officer. They did not file any objeci:ion 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.
D
           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
E   respondents have no rights of claim or any interest in the said land. No
    costs.

    R.A.                                                       Appeals allowed.