Gulab Chand vs Additional District Judge,Sonbhadra and Others

B. K. Roy, J.—The prayer of petitioner is to quash the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in so far as they relate to the acceptance by them of the claim of bhumidhari by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. His further prayer is to direct Respondent No. 2 to continue the entries as they are.

Sri S.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that proceeding before the Forest Settlement Officer under Sections 7/11 of the Indian Forest Act were regarding the question whether the land in dispute is agricultural and not in regard to declaration that it is within reserved forest area and, thus, the forest authority had no jurisdiction to adjudicate in regard to the right and title over the land in question and, therefore, the order in respect of the land being forest land under Section 131 (a) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is totally without jurisdiction. He further submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had no jurisdiction to pass orders conferring bhumidhari rights on Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 which could be adjudicated upon under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the competent Revenue Court only and, therefore, the orders are liable to be quashed to this extent.

Having perused the orders of the original and the appellate authorities, it appears that the petitioner has lost his claim throughout. Prima facie, the authorities below have committed no error while passing their orders. This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal to record a finding of fact and take a view different from the view taken concurrently by the authorities concerned. It appears to me that the petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest over the land in question.

This constitutional Court is not a proper forum for this. Tie petitioner may avail other remedies in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this writ petition is, dismissed. ;

The office is directed to serve within 2 weeks a copy of this order on Smt. Sarita Singh, learned Standing Counsel for its communication to the Forest Officer concerned. Petition dismissed.