Shivram and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

The Forest Settlement Officer/Special Officer, Sonbhadra in proceedings u/s 7/11 of the Indian Forest Act in Suit No. 874 passed an order dated 6th December, 2003 declaring the various plots of land to be recorded as reserved forest and all objections raised in that regard were rejected. A further direction was issued that the records may be placed before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anpara, Obera on 23rd December, 2003 and the parties may be informed accordingly in view of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court treating it to be Swayojit Appeal.

This/Court may record that Settlement Officer noticed the objections raised by various parties and with reference to the spot inspection made, recorded that at the time of spot inspection, plots were found to be unfit for cultivation and infact a jungle. None of the objectors were found to be in possession of the plots in question nor any cultivation has been done. The objectors failed to establish their possession over the disputed plots since prior to 1385 Fasli. It is in these circumstances that the Settlement Officer directed that the land be treated to be forest land.

Before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, an application was made by the petitioners, who were non-objectors alleging therein that they are in possession of certain plots for the last so many years and they may be heard by the appellate Court.

The Additional District &Sessions Judge has rejected the application made by the petitioner after observing that if the petitioners had any right or title over the plots in question on the strength of the possession, they should have filed their objections before the Settlement Officer which has not done. It has been held that at this stage no objections are to be entertained afresh. Accordingly, after considering the records, it has been directed that there is no illegality in the order of the Settlement Officer dated 6th December, 2003 and therefore, the order is being confirmed. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed.

Various facts and pleas have been raised for challenging the order so passed. However, it is admitted to the petitioners that they had not filed any objections before the Settlement Officer on the basis of title or on the basis of possession over the plots in question. The claim of other objectors was considered and was rejected. It was always open to the petitioners to have filed their objections before the Settlement Officer which they have not chosen to do so. The spot inspection of the plots in question is not under challenge.

In the totality of the circumstances, as noticed above, this Court finds that the Additional District & Sessions Judge is justified in not entertaining the objections at the appellate stage for the firs time. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge. However, since the petitioners are not parties to the aforesaid proceedings, order of the Settlement Officer may not be binding upon them and therefore, it will be open to the petitioners to file their objections, if permissible under law, before the Settlement Officer.

The present writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above.