The court’s recent decision on analyzing the notification of forest land under the Forest Act highlights the critical legal aspects of land notifications. Emphasizing procedural requirements, the court’s thorough legal analysis provides valuable insights into the complexities surrounding land ownership and notifications under specific statutes.
Facts
- The Abolition Act provisions state that all rights, title, and interest of intermediaries including the forest have vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- A challenge to an order passed by the Allahabad High Court on 30.11.2005 was made in the present appeal.
- On 23.11.1955, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
- The High Court set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow on 08.07.2004.
- The revenue entry of Khasra Nos. 1576 and 1738 was ordered to be corrected in the name of Department of Forest, and the claim of rival claimants was set aside.
- A notification dated 11.10.1952 under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was published in U.P. Gazette on 18.10.1952.
- The notification stated that an area of 162 acres in Village Kasmandi Khurd shall not vest with the Gaon Samaj.
Also Read: Interpretation of Will and Hindu Succession Act: Legal Analysis
Arguments
- Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court made a grave error in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Director without any legal or factual basis.
- Details of the land in the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act were insufficient, only mentioning a total area of 162 acres.
- The details of khasra numbers part of the 162 acres were included in the published proclamation, satisfying statutory procedural requirements.
- Reference was made to a judgment in State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation where a similar issue regarding land notification under the Forest Act was addressed.
Also Read: Analysis of High Court’s Decision on Registration Certificate and Onus of Proof in Sales Tax Case
Analysis
- Notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act issued on 23.11.1955 declared 162 acres of land as reserved forest, vesting all rights in the State.
- Proclamation under Section 6 of the Forest Act was subsequently issued specifying the boundaries and details of the proposed forest area.
- Lessees were not in possession of the land at the time of the notification and therefore had no claim over it.
- Section 5 of the Forest Act prohibits acquisition of rights over land notified under Section 4, except through specific means like succession or written contracts with the Government.
- The forest land in question, including Khasra No. 1576, was part of the total area declared under the Forest Act.
- No objections were raised by any party, including Gaon Sabha, during the proclamation under Section 6 of the Forest Act.
- The land was eventually transferred to the Forest Department according to the provisions of the Abolition Act.
- Consolidation authorities were deemed to have no jurisdiction to challenge the notification under the Forest Act.
- The State Government has not issued any general or special orders for vesting any part of the land measuring 162 acres with the Gaon Sabha.
- Ownership based on entries in revenue records was negated in a judgment.
- Revenue records do not confer title to the property or have presumptive value on the title.
- The six-yearly khatauni for the fasli year indicated land transfer according to the Forest Act.
- Revenue records are not documents of title and do not create rights, titles, or interests.
- Name of lessees in revenue records without supporting lease creation documents is inconsequential.
- In another case, the argument that land covered by a notification under Section 4 cannot be regarded as forest without Section 20 notification was negated.
- Regulation by the State under the Forest Act begins after the issuance of a notification under Section 4.
- No time limit is prescribed for the publication of a notification under Section 20.
- Absence of a Section 20 notification does not allow acquisition of rights over the land unless by a written contract.
- Order of the High Court cannot be sustained in law.
- The lessee must assert title on forest land with a written agreement by a competent authority, which was not produced in this case.
- Lessee is not entitled to rights based solely on entry in revenue records.
Also Read: Liability of Inspection Agency for Consignment Specifications
Decision
- The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8.7.2004 has been restored.
- The appeal has been allowed.
- The order is set aside.
Case Title: PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PPABHAG Vs. ARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. (2021 INSC 615)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007017-007017 / 2009
