Allahabad High Court: In a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) against a Judgment and decree of the District Court, Rajnish Kumar, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the respondents are not entitled for any benefits emanating from the impugned order and the forest department of the State is the true owner of the land. The Court held that once the notifications declaring land as reserved forest were issued and published in the official gazettes, it will be deemed that they have been issued in accordance with law after following due procedure of law and it could not have been held illegal or inoperative without challenge to the notifications in appropriate proceedings but not in a suit for permanent injunction.
Two notifications were issued by the Forest Department, Uttar Pradesh in the years 1966 and 1970 under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Forest Act, 1927 (‘Act of 1927’) respectively, declaring the land in dispute, a reserved forest. The respondents got a permanent injunction against the issued Notifications vide judgment and decree in 1980. The District Judge, Kheri dismissed the appeal filed by the Forest Department to quash the said injunction and upheld the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. Hence, the Second Appeal has been filed by the Forest Department seeking to quash the impugned decree, granting permanent injunction.
The State chose to question the maintainability of the permanent injunction granted to the respondents pursuant to a suit filed under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (‘UPZA&LR’) based on the facts of the case, considering the Notifications under the Act of 1927 were issued in the year 1966 and 1970 and if the same would give rise to any subsisting cause of action.
The Court, evaluating the appeal for any substantial questions of law, took the view that once substantial questions of law was formulated in this appeal, it cannot be dismissed merely because similar second appeals have been dismissed by the Court, particularly, when the said orders have been passed without considering the issues raised in this appeal.
The Bench upon perusing the scheme of the Act of 1927 said that all claims regarding land included in the notification are adjudicated by the Forest Settlement Officer who exercises all the powers of the civil Court in Trial of the suits. The Court held that no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued.
The Court also said that the once the said notifications were issued and published in the official gazettes, it will be deemed that they have been issued in accordance with law after following due procedure of law and it could not have been held illegal or inoperative without challenge to the notifications in appropriate proceedings but not in a suit for permanent injunction.
The Court also explained that the Act of 1950 was promulgated for abolition of the zamindari system which involves intermediaries between the tiller of the soil and the State and for acquisition of their rights, title and interest and to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent on such abolition and acquisition and to make provision for other matters connected therewith.
The Court said that all the estates in State of U.P. after notification under the said Act vested in State and unless anybody acquired any right or title under the said Act, he is not entitled to claim any right over any land.
The Bench while referring to Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vyankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1307 and Poonam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2016) 2 SCC 779 said that since the land in dispute was already declared as forest land, therefore the forest department was a necessary party to the suit as only the department could have given the correct facts and clarified the position. Impleading the State has no effect and order could not have been passed without impleadment of the forest department or the concerned officer of the forest department.
The Bench clarified that the Sirdar is not a proprietor but merely the tenure holder and the propriety right of any such land vested with the State. Thus, even if the respondents were in possession on the land in dispute as Sirdar, they had no right or title over the land in dispute. Hence, the Forest Department was justified in declaring and notifying the land in dispute as reserve forest.
The Bench cited Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 724 to reiterate that the High Court cannot undertake the exercise of going into the question of repugnancy in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the statutory provisions of the Act of 1927. The Court also explained that once the provisions of the Act of 1927 have not been challenged and are valid, the operation of the same cannot be ignored.
The Court also said that Court below examined the legality and validity of the notifications without it being challenged which was not permissible considering it is a suit for permanent injunction.
The Court said that no authority other that the State has authority to determine the rights contained in Section 27-A of the Act of 1927 and the revenue authorities could not have determined the rights under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR. The Bench said that the injunction could not have been granted by the Civil Court and only the Forest Settlement Officer has the authority to take up objections after the issuance of the notifications and reiterated that if any Order is passed by an incompetent authority, de horse the statutory prescriptions, that order would be nullity in the eyes of law and would be void ab initio.
Thus, the Court held that the suit was not maintainable and could not have been decreed. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Court below and the First Appellate Court were not sustainable in the eyes of law.
[Divisional Forest Officer, North Kheri v. Surjan Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine All 661, Order Dates 14-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Additional Advocate General Vimal Srivastava, Standing Counsel S.K. Khare
For the Respondents: Advocate Sajid Raza Rizvi and Advocate Satendra Nath Rai
