PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG versus ARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS. on 5 October 2021

234

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 10 S.C.R.

APRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG

v.

ARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.(Civil Appeal No. 7017 of 2009)

BOCTOBER 05, 2021

[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – ss.4,117 – Indian Forest Act, 1927 – ss.3-6, 20 – U.P. Consolidation ofHoldings Act, 1953 – ss.48, 49 – Proceedings initiated by ForestCDepartment to rectify the revenue record from the name of the lesseeto that of the Forest Department – Application dismissed – Appealalso dismissed – In revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation setaside the order dismissing the application and ordered the revenueentry of Khasra Nos.1576 and 1738 to be corrected in the name ofDDepartment of Forest – Writ petition filed by lessees, order passedby Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside – On appeal, held:Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease in favour of theappellant – Land vests in the Forest Department by virtue ofnotification published under a statute – It was the lessee who hadto assert the title on the forest land by virtue of an agreement inEwriting by a competent authority but no such agreement wasproduced – Lessee would not be entitled to any right only on thebasis of an entry in the revenue record – Revenue record is not adocument of title – Order of the High Court set aside while that ofthe Deputy Director of Consolidation is restored.FIndian Forest Act, 1927:

s.5 – Bar under – Discussed.

s.4 – Requirements of – Discussed.

Allowing the appeal, the CourtG

HELD: 1.1 The notification dated 11.10.1952 published interms of Section 4 of the Abolition Act was to the effect that allestates situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State. Theextent to which uncultivated land which not vests in Gaon Samajwas mentioned in Column 5 stating that 162 acres of VillageH

Conclusion

Kasmandi Khurd would not vest in Gaon Samaj. Such notificationhas the effect that all rights, title and interest, shall be deemed tobe vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of Section 117of the Abolition Act, the State can transfer the lands by a generalor special order as prescribed therein including forests to GaonSabha and to other local authorities. It is not the case of any ofthe parties that the land, which was the subject matter ofnotification dated 11.10.1952, was subject to any general or specialorders by the State to transfer the same in favor of Gaon Sabhaand/or any other local authority. Therefore, the land comprisingin notification dated 11.10.1952 unequivocally vests with theState. It is thereafter that a notification dated 23.11.1955 waspublished in respect of 162 acres of land situated in KasmandiKhurd. Such notification describes the land with boundariesmentioned in the notification. Thereafter, another proclamationwas published under Section 6 of the Forest Act in respect of162 acres of land including 20 bighas 13 biswas and 10 biswansiof Khasra No.1576 of Village Kasmandi Khurd. The notificationunder Section 4 of the Forest Act to declare any land as reservedforest could be issued if the State has proprietary rights oversuch land or if it is entitled to the produce thereof. The StateGovernment has the jurisdiction to declare a protected forest ifthe land is the property of the Government over which proprietaryrights are exercised. The land measuring 162 acres was theproperty of the Government in terms of the notification dated11.10.1952. In terms of Section 4 of the Forest Act, the StateGovernment can issue a notification to constitute any land asreserved forest. In the notification published on 23.11.1955, therewas a declaration that land measuring 162 acres shall constituteforest land. Explanation (1) to Section 4 of the Forest Act clarifiesthat it would be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest byroads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligibleboundaries. The notification dated 23.11.1955 has the boundarieson all four sides mentioned therein. There is no otherrequirement under Section 4 of the Forest Act. It is only Section6 of the Forest Act which needs to specify the situation and limitsof the proposed forest. In terms of such clause (a) of Section 6 ofthe Forest Act, the details of khasra numbers which were part of AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A162 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 showthat for a reserved forest, there is a requirement of publicationof notification but no time limit is prescribed for publication ofsuch notification under Section 20. Therefore, even if notificationBunder Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been issued, by virtue ofSection 5 of the Forest Act, there is a prohibition againstacquisition of any right over the land comprised in such notificationexcept by way of a contract executed in writing by or on behalf ofthe Government. Since no such written contract was executedCby or on behalf of the State or on behalf of the person in whomsuch right was vested, therefore, the Gaon Sabha was notcompetent 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.D(1996) 5 SCC 194 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 191; State ofUttarakhand and Ors. v. Kumaon Stone Crushe (2018)14 SCC 537: [2017] 11 SCR 591; Prahlad Pradhanand Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors, (2019) 10 SCC 259: [2019] 14 SCALE 49 – relied on.

E1.2 The six yearly khatauni for the fasli year 1395 to 1400is to the effect that the land stands transferred according to theForest Act as the reserved forest. Such revenue record is inrespect of Khasra No. 1576. It is only in the revenue record forthe period 1394 fasli to 1395 fasli, name of the lessees find mentionbut without any basis. The revenue record is not a document ofFtitle. Therefore, even if the name of the lessee finds mention inthe revenue record but such entry without any supportingdocuments of creation of lease contemplated under the ForestAct is inconsequential and does not create any right, title orinterest over 12 bighas of land claimed to be in possession of theGlessee as a lessee of the Gaon Sabha. The High Court had referredto the objections filed by the lessees under the ConsolidationAct and also objections by the Forest Department. It was held bythe High Court that since no objections were filed by the ForestDepartment earlier, therefore, the objections would be barred H

by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. Such finding recorded bythe High Court is clearly erroneous. The land vests in the ForestDepartment by virtue of notification published under a statute. Itwas the lessee who had to assert the title on the forest land byvirtue of an agreement in writing by a competent authority but nosuch agreement in writing has been produced. Therefore, thelessee would not be entitled to any right only on the basis of anentry in the revenue record. The order of the High Court is setaside. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidationdated 8.7.2004 is restored. [Paras 27-29][252-C-G]

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7017 of2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2005 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.576 (Cons) of 2004.

Ravindra Raizada, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, AshiwanMishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant.

Naushad Ahmad Khan, Aftab Ali Khan, Ms. Manisha Chauhan,Ali Safeer Farooqi, Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Arvind Kumar Kanva, Anil Hooda,Jitender Hooda, Shafik Ahmed, Ajay Sharma, Anuraag Tripathi, HarinderMohan Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 30.11.2005 whereby the writpetition filed by the respondents[1] was allowed.

2. The High Court vide the impugned order has set aside theorder dated 08.07.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,Lucknow, wherein, the revenue entry of Khasra Nos. 1576 and 1738was ordered to be corrected in the name of Department of Forest andthe claim of rival claimants were set aside.

1 For short, the ‘lessees’

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3. A notification dated 11.10.1952 under Section 4 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950[2] was published in U.P.Gazette dated 18.10.1952 to the effect that an area of 162 acres inVillage Kasmandi Khurd shall not vest with the Gaon Samaj. The relevantextract of the notification reads thus:

B“No. 617 xIV- In exercise of the powers conferred by section117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950(U.P. Act 1 of 1951), the Governor is pleased to declare that asfrom the first day of November, 1952-

1. All land, whether cultivable or otherwise except land forCthe time being comprised in any holding or grove, and

2. All the forest within the village boundaries.

Situate in a circle, which have vested in the state under thesaid Act, shall, subject to the exceptions shown in Schedulesland I and II hereto, vest in the Gaon Samaj established forDthe Circle.

Schedule I

Particulars of uncultivated land and the extent to which they shallnot vest in Gaon Samajs E

F

4. The provisions of the Abolition Act, as are relevant for thepurpose of the present appeal, read thus: - “4. Vesting of estates in the State. - (1) As soon as may be afterthe commencement of this Act, the State Government may, byGnotification, declare that, as from a date to be specified, all estatessituate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from thebeginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the date ofvesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, exceptas hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances.

H2 For short, the ‘Abolition Act’

(2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so considersnecessary, to issue, from time to time, the notification referred toin sub-section (1) in respect only of such area or areas as may bespecified and all the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be applicableto and in the case of every such notification.

5. Notification to be published in the Gazette. - The notificationreferred to in Section 4 shall be published in the Gazette and suchpublication shall be conclusive proof of the due publication thereof.

6. Consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State. -Whenthe notification under Section 4 has been published in the Gazette,then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract ordocument or in any other law for the time being in force and saveas otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafterset forth shall, from the beginning of the date of vesting, ensure inthe area to which the notification relates, namely:

(a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries—

(i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren),groveland, forests whether within or outside village boundaries,trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove), fisheries,tanks, ponds, waterchannels, ferries, pathways, abadi sites, hats,bazars and melas [other than hats, bazars and melas held uponland to which clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 18apply], and

(ii) in all sub-soil in such estates including rights, if any, in minesand minerals, whether being worked or not, shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free fromall encumbrances; xx xxxx”

5. It is thus contended that in terms of Section 4 of the AbolitionAct, all rights, title and interest of all intermediaries including the foresthad vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of Section 117 of theAbolition Act, the land of the forest can vest in the Gaon Sabha or anyother local authority by a general or special order of the Government.Section 117 of the Abolition Act reads as:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“117. Vesting of certain lands etc., in Gaon Sabhas and other localauthorities.- 1) At any time after the publication of the notificationreferred to in Section 4, the State Government may, by general orspecial orders to be published in the manner prescribed declarethat as from a date to be specified in this behalf, all or any of thefollowing things, namely:B

(i) lands, whether cultivable or otherwise, except lands for thetime being comprised in any holding or grove;

(ii) forests;

(iii) trees, other than trees in a holding or on the boundary of aCholding or in grove or a abadi;

(iv) fisheries;

(v) hats, bazars and melas except hats, bazars and melasheld on lands to which the provisions of Clauses (a) to (c)Dof sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply or on sites and areasreferred to Section 9; and

(vi) tanks, ponds, private ferries, water channels, pathways andabadi sites,-

which had vested in the State under this Act shall vest in the GaonESabhas or any other local authority established for the whole orpart of the village in which the said things are situate, or party inone such local authority (including a Gaon Sabha) partly in another:

Provided that it shall be lawful for the State Government tomake the declaration aforesaid subject to such exceptions andFconditions as may be specified in such order.”

6. It may be stated that no general or special orders have beenissued by the State Government for vesting any part of the land measuring162 acres with the Gaon Sabha.

G7. It was on 23.11.1955, a notification was issued under Section 4of the Indian Forest Act, 1927[3]. Vide the said notification, objectionswere invited in respect of the land forming part of the notification. Therelevant extract of the notification reads thus:

H3 For short, the ‘Forest Act’

PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUNKUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

“Government of Uttar Pradesh

A

Department of Forest

Misc.

23.11.1955

6828/1-806-55 – Following land has been declared asBProtected Forest by his Excellency Governor, as per the powersprovided under Section 4 Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act No. 16 of1927)

According to Section 4 sub-section 1(C) of the aforesaidAct, concerned Sub-Divisional Officer is appointed ForestSettlement Officer and Additional Commissioner, LucknowDivision empowered to receive objections against the order ofForest Settlement Officer under Section 17 of the Act.

C

D

E

8. After the said notification, a proclamation under Section 6 ofthe Forest Act was carried out on 28.04.1968. The relevant extract ofthe proclamation after publication reads thus:

H

9. The extract from the Indian Forest Act, 1927 relevant for thepresent appeal reads thus:

A

“3. Power to reserve forests. - The State Government mayconstitute any forest-land or waste-land which is the property ofGovernment or over which the Government has proprietary rights,or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which theGovernment is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafterprovided.

B

4. Notification by State Government. - (1) Whenever it has beendecided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the StateGovernment shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette—

C

(a) declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land areserved forest; (b) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits ofsuch land; and D

(c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called “the Forest Settlement-officer”) to inquire into and determine the existence, nature andextent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in orover any land comprised within such limits or in or over any forest-produce, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter.

E

Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (b), it shall be sufficientto describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or otherwell-known or readily intelligible boundaries.

(2) The officer appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) shallordinarily be a person not holding any forest-office except that ofForest Settlement-officer.

F

(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the State Governmentfrom appointing any number of officers not exceeding three, notmore than one of whom shall be a person holding any forest-office except as aforesaid, to perform the duties of a ForestGSettlement-officer under this Act.

5. Bar of accrual of forest rights. - After the issue of a notificationunder Section 4, no right shall be acquired in or over the landcomprised in such notification, except by succession or under agrant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf H

of the Government or some person in whom such right was vestedwhen the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings forcultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such landexcept in accordance with such rules as may be made by theState Government in this behalf.

6. Proclamation by Forest Settlement-officer. - When a notificationhas been issued under Section 4, the Forest Settlement-officershall publish in the local vernacular in every town and village inthe neighbourhood of the land comprised therein, a proclamation—

(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of theproposed forest; (b) explaining the consequences which, as hereinafter provided,will ensure on the reservation of such forest; and

(c) fixing a period of not less than three months from the date ofsuch proclamation, and requiring every person claiming any rightmentioned in Section 4 or Section 5 within such period either topresent to the Forest Settlement-officer a written notice specifyingor to appear before him and state, the nature of such right and theamount and particulars of the compensation (if any) claimed inrespect thereof.

xxx xxx

xxx

20. Notification declaring forest reserved. - (1) When the followingevents have occurred, namely:—

(a) the period fixed under Section 6 for preferring claims haveelapsed and all claims if any made under that section or Section 9have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement-officer; (b) if any such claims have been made, the period limited bySection 17 for appealing from the orders passed on such claimshas elapsed, and all appeals (if any) presented within such periodhave been disposed of by the appellate officer or; Court and

(c) all lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, whichthe Forest Settlement-officer has, under Section 11, elected toacquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), havebecome vested in the Government under Section 16 of that Act,the State Government shall publish a notification in the OfficialGazette, specifying definitely, according to boundary-marks erected A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aor otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, anddeclaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by thenotification.

(2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be areserved forest.”

B10. It appears that local management committee (Gaon Sabha)had put the lessees into possession of 7 bighas of land on 15.05.1966 andanother 5 bighas of land on 26.12.1966 forming part of Khasra No. 1576measuring 20 bighas 13 biswas and 10 biswansi. Such act of grant oflease was challenged by the Forest Department but remainedCunsuccessful vide order dated 19.12.1969. Such order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow was set aside by theAdditional Commissioner, Lucknow Division on 22.07.1970. The furtherrevision filed by the lessee before the Board of Revenue was dismissedbut in terms of order dated 22.07.1970, a fresh decision was to be takenafter impleading local management committee who had granted lease toDthe lessee on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. There is nothing on record as towhat happened consequent to the remand by the Additional Commissioneras affirmed upon by the Board of Revenue.

11. In the six-years khatauni for the period 1380 fasli to 1388 fasli,the barren land which could be made cultivable including Khasra no.E1576 were recorded to be transferred from the name of Gaon Sabhavillage Kasmandi Khurd to Department of Forest.

“Six Years Khatauni

Village: Kasmandi Khurd Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad Distt.LucknowF

Year : From 1380 Fasli year to till Fasli 1388

12. That a six yearly khatauni for the fasli year 1395 to 1400 wasissued by which Khasra no. 1576 was transferred to the forest as aprotected forest. The relevant extract from the khatauni reads thus:

A

“INTKHAB SIX YEARLY KHATAUNI

VILLAGE KASMANDI KHURD, PARGANA AND TEHSIL,MALIHABAD, B

DISTT. LUCKNOW, YEAR 1395 TO 1400

C

D

13. The name of the lessee appears for the first time in the khatauniprepared for the year 1407 fasli till 1412 fasli wherein the possession ofthe lessee was recorded from 1394 fasli to 1395 fasli in respect of 12bighas of land.

E

“Six Years Khatauni

Intikhab Khatauni

Village: Kasmandi Khurd Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad Distt.Lucknow Year : From 1407 Fasli year to till Fasli 1412

F

S.No. of Name of Year start Khasra Area Payable Brief of any order of Commentskhata Khatedar phical no. of in lagaan or changes, no. and date and the Khatauniand possessioneach Hec malguzariname and post of issuing Father’s plot in officer attested by Registrar name bigha Qanungo (band)12345678910111213GCategory 2 as Sankramniya Bhomidar295 Brij From 1576/ A 7 Mohan 1394 to and S/o 1395 1576/ A 5 Kakaram 2 R/o ---- ---- Daliganj 12 75 Lucknow CityH

H

A14. It is thereafter, proceedings were initiated under the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953[4] by the Forest Department to rectifythe revenue record from the name of the lessee to that of the ForestDepartment. Such application was dismissed on 22.07.1993. The appealagainst the said order was dismissed. The Deputy Director Consolidation,in a revision under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act, vide order datedB08.07.2004, set aside the order dated 22.07.1993. The Deputy Directorin its order on 28.02.2004 held as under:

A

“………In this regard it is clear as has been stated before thatthe notification has been issued regarding the land in villageincluding disputed Plot no. by the Dept. of Forest, copy of whichis sent to all the Depts. Therefore at the time of making entry inthe records same has to be taken cognizance of and it has beendone also accordingly. Since the disputed land has been notified inthe name of Deptt. of Forest so that land cannot be used foragricultural purposes and in such situation the grant of patta ofthe land loses its relevance. If the father of opposite party has gotpatta Bhoomidari saved on irregular basis, it does not have anysignificance. The Chakbandi Officer and Astt. Bandobast OfficerChakbandi has distorted the facts and had tried to cause loss tothe Govt. and Dept. of Forest and benefit to opposite parties whichis highly objectionable.

C

D

E

From the above it is clear that the Chakbandi Officer andAsst. Bandobast Officer Chakbandi had completely ignored theclaim of Dept. of Forest regarding the notification of disputedland in their favour and had deleted their name without any reasonsand had got the land in question in favour of the land owners. Theabove act of the officers is punishable offence as it causes damageto Govt. property. In my opinion action to be taken against themaccording to law. The disputed plot has been notified in the nameof Dept. of Forest and the entry no. 88 to such effect has to becontinued with without any interference and double entries to beomitted/cancelled. According the appeal is entitled to be allowed.

F

G

Order

Therefore on the basis of above analysis the appeal ishereby admitted. The order of Chakbandi Officer dated 22.7.93

H

4 For short, the ‘Consolidation Act’

and Astt. Bandobast Officer Chakbandi dated 28.2.2004 is herebyset aside. Plot No. 1576 of area DO/13/10 and Plot No. 1738 ofarea. 1 Bigha, plot no. 868/1830 of area 2-4-0 entry no. 881 infavour of Dept. of Forest and the claim of other land owners ishereby cancelled. Case file consigned to record room.”

15. It is the said order which was set aside by the High Court inthe writ petition filed by the lessees.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the HighCourt has gravely erred in setting aside the order passed by the DeputyDirector as there was no legal or factual basis to do so. The notificationdated 11.10.1952 published in terms of Section 4 of the Abolition Actwas to the effect that all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vest inthe State. The extent to which uncultivated land which not vests in GaonSamaj was mentioned in Column 5 stating that 162 acres of VillageKasmandi Khurd would not vest in Gaon Samaj. Such notification hasthe effect that all rights, title and interest, shall be deemed to be vestedin the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of Section 117 of the AbolitionAct, the State can transfer the lands by a general or special order asprescribed therein including forests to Gaon Sabha and to other localauthorities. It is not the case of any of the parties that the land, whichwas the subject matter of notification dated 11.10.1952, was subject toany general or special orders by the State to transfer the same in favorof Gaon Sabha and/or any other local authority. Therefore, the landcomprising in notification dated 11.10.1952 unequivocally vests with theState.

17. It is thereafter that a notification dated 23.11.1955 waspublished in respect of 162 acres of land situated in Kasmandi Khurd.Such notification describes the land with boundaries mentioned in thenotification. Thereafter, another proclamation was published under Section6 of the Forest Act in respect of 162 acres of land including 20 bighas 13biswas and 10 biswansi of Khasra No. 1576 of Village Kasmandi Khurd.The notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act to declare any land asreserved forest could be issued if the State has proprietary rights oversuch land or if it is entitled to the produce thereof.

18. The State Government has the jurisdiction to declare a protectedforest if the land is the property of the Government over which proprietaryrights are exercised. The land measuring 162 acres was the property ofthe Government in terms of the notification dated 11.10.1952. In terms A

BC

D

EF

G

H

Aof Section 4 of the Forest Act, the State Government can issue anotification to constitute any land as reserved forest. The notificationdated 23.11.1955 satisfies the three conditions mentioned in sub-section4 i.e., (i) decision to constitute such land as reserved forest, (ii) situationand limits of such land, and (iii) appointing an officer to inquire into anddetermine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to existBin favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits.The lessees were not in possession of any part of the land at the time ofissuance of such notification under Section 4 on 23.11.1955. Therefore,they have rightly not claimed any right over the property nor the GaonSabha has claimed any right in the land measuring 162 acres notifiedCunder Section 4 of the Act.

19. Section 5 of the Forest Act bars that no right shall be acquiredin or over the land comprised in notification under Section 4 of the ForestAct, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing madeor entered into by or on behalf of the Government. Once the notificationDdated 23.11.1955 was published under Section 4 of the Forest Act, therecould not be any transfer of right in the land so notified in favour of thelessee by the Gaon Sabha.

20. It is thereafter, a proclamation was required to be issued underSection 6 of the Forest Act publishing in the local vernacular in everyEtown and village specified, as nearly as possible, the situation and limitsof the proposed forest. In the proclamation under Section 6 of the ForestAct, different khasra numbers have been specified including KhasraNo. 1576. Such khasra number forms part of the total forest land declaredunder Section 4 of the Act measuring 162 acres. The proclamation ofpublication was published in the locality but none including the GaonFSabha objected to the declaration of land as forest area.

21. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the lessee and Mr. Hooda,learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha vehemently argued that the detailsof land in respect of which notification under Section 4 of the Forest Actwas issued are not mentioned, except providing the total area measuringG162 acres. It was argued that such notification is vague and does notcomply with the conditions specified in Section 4 of the Forest Act. Itwas only in the proclamation published under Section 6 of the Forest Actthat Khasra No. 1576 was mentioned.

22. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by Mr. KhanHand Mr. Hooda. 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 besufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges orother well-known or readily intelligible boundaries. The notification dated23.11.1955 has the boundaries on all four sides mentioned therein. Thereis no other requirement under Section 4 of the Forest Act. It is onlySection 6 of the Forest Act which needs to specify the situation andlimits of the proposed forest. In terms of such clause (a) of Section 6 ofthe Forest Act, the details of khasra numbers which were part of 162acres find mention in the proclamation so published. Therefore, thestatutory procedural requirements stand satisfied.

23. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to a judgmentreported as State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors.[5]wherein the land was notified as a reserved forest under Section 20 ofthe Forest Act but the respondents in appeal before this Court claimedthat they were in possession of the land and had acquired Sirdari rights.This Court held that in terms of the Abolition Act, the State was theproprietor of the land and the respondents, even if they were Sirdars,would still be tenure-holders. It was also held that the ConsolidationAuthorities have no jurisdiction to go behind the notification under Section20 of the Forest Act. The Court held as under:

“7. It is thus obvious that a person who was holding the land asSirdar was not vested with proprietary rights under the AbolitionAct. He was a tenure-holder and the proprietary rights vestedwith the State. The High Court, therefore, fell into patent error inassuming that by virtue of their status as Sirdars the respondentswere proprietors of the land. The State being the proprietor of theland under the Abolition Act, it was justified in issuing thenotification under Section 4 of the Act.

xxxxxx10. It is thus obvious that the Forest Settlement Officer has thepowers of a civil court and his order is subject to appeal andfinally revision before the State Government. The Act is a completecode in itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring andnotifying a reserve forest. Once a notification under Section 20 ofthe Act declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all therights in the said land claimed by anyperson come to an end and AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Aare no longer available. The notification is binding on theconsolidation authorities in the same way as a decree of a civilcourt. The respondents could very well file objections and claimsincluding objection regarding the nature of the land before theForest Settlement Officer. They did not file any objection or claimbefore the authorities in the proceedings under the Act. After theBnotification under Section 20 of the Act, the respondents couldnot have raised any objections qua the said notification before theconsolidation authorities. The consolidation authorities were boundby the notification which had achieved finality.”

24. Mr. Khan further raised an argument that the final notificationCunder Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been published. A reading ofSection 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 isprescribed for publication of such notification under Section 20. Therefore,even if notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act has not beenDissued, by virtue of Section 5 of the Forest Act, there is a prohibitionagainst acquisition of any right over the land comprised in such notificationexcept by way of a contract executed in writing by or on behalf of theGovernment. Since no such written contract was executed by or onbehalf of the State or on behalf of the person in whom such right wasvested, therefore, the Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease inEfavour of the appellant.

25. In a judgment reported as State of Uttarakhand and Ors. v.

Kumaon Stone Crusher[6], an argument was raised that since notificationunder Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been published therefore,land covered by notification issued under Section 4 cannot be regardedFas forest. This Court negated the argument relying upon Section 5 of theForest Act as amended in State of Uttar Pradesh by U.P. Act No. 23 of1965. It was held that regulation by the State comes into operation afterthe issue of notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act and that absenceof notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act cannot be accepted.The Court held as under:G“145. At this juncture, it is also necessary to notice one submissionraised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contendedthat the State of Uttar Pradesh although issued notification underSection 4 of the 1927 Act proposing to constitute a land as forest H6 (2018) 14 SCC 537

PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUNKUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

but no final notification having been issued under Section 20 ofthe 1927 Act the land covered by a notification issued under Section4 cannot be regarded as forest so as to levy transit fee on theforest produce transiting through that area. With reference to theabove submission, it is sufficient to notice Section 5 as inserted byUttar Pradesh Act 23 of 1965 with effect from 25-11-1965. Bythe aforesaid U.P. Act 23 of 1965 Section 5 has been substitutedto the following effect:

“5. Bar of accrual of forest rights.—After the issue of thenotification under Section 4 no right shall be acquired in orover the land comprised in such notification, except bysuccession or under a grant or a contract in writing made orentered into by or on behalf of the Government or some personin whom such right was vested when the notification wasissued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any otherpurpose shall be made in such land, nor any tree therein felled,girdled, lopped, tapped, or burnt, or its bark or leaves strippedoff, or the same otherwise damaged, nor any forest produceremoved therefrom, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.”

146. Section 5 clearly provides that after the issue of thenotification under Section 4 no forest produce can be removedtherefrom, except in accordance with such rules as may be madeby the State Government in this behalf. The regulation by theState thus comes into operation after the issue of notification underSection 4 and thus the submission of the petitioners that since nofinal notification under Section 20 has been issued they cannot beregulated by the 1978 Rules cannot be accepted.”

26. This Court in a judgment reported as Prahlad Pradhan andOrs. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors.[7] negated argument of ownership basedupon entries in the revenue records. It was held that the revenue recorddoes not confer title to the property nor do they have any presumptivevalue on the title. The Court held as under:

“5. The contention raised by the appellants is that since MangalKumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per theSurvey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self-acquiredproperty. The said contention is legally misconceived since entries 7 (2019) 10 SCC 259

ABC

D

EF

G

H

Ain the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor dothey have any presumptive value on the title. They only enablethe person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the landrevenue in respect of the land in question. As a consequence,merely because Mangal Kumhar’s name was recorded in theSurvey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property,Bit would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suitproperty.”

27. The six yearly khatauni for the fasli year 1395 to 1400 is to theeffect that the land stands transferred according to the Forest Act as thereserved forest. Such revenue record is in respect of Khasra No. 1576.CIt 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 revenuerecord is not a document of title. Therefore, even if the name of thelessee finds mention in the revenue record but such entry without anysupporting documents of creation of lease contemplated under the ForestDAct is inconsequential and does not create any right, title or interest over12 bighas of land claimed to be in possession of the lessee as a lessee ofthe Gaon Sabha.

28. The High Court had referred to the objections filed by thelessees under the Consolidation Act and also objections by the ForestEDepartment. It was held by the High Court that since no objectionswere filed by the Forest Department earlier, therefore, the objectionswould be barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. We find thatsuch finding recorded by the High Court is clearly erroneous. The landvests in the Forest Department by virtue of notification published undera statute. It was the lessee who had to assert the title on the forest landFby virtue of an agreement in writing by a competent authority but nosuch agreement in writing has been produced. Therefore, the lesseewould not be entitled to any right only on the basis of an entry in therevenue record.

29. In view thereof, we find that the order of the High CourtGcannot be sustained in law. The same is hereby set aside. The appeal isallowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated8.7.2004 is restored.

H

Divya Pandey