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

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 234 · Decided: 05-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
234
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG
v.
ARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7017 of 2009)
OCTOBER 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 of
Holdings Act, 1953 – ss.48, 49 – Proceedings initiated by Forest
Department to rectify the revenue record from the name of the lessee
to that of the Forest Department – Application dismissed – Appeal
also dismissed – In revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation set
aside the order dismissing the application and ordered the revenue
entry of Khasra Nos.1576 and 1738 to be corrected in the name of
Department of Forest – Writ petition filed by lessees, order passed
by Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside – On appeal, held:
Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease in favour of the
appellant – Land vests in the Forest Department by virtue of
notification published under a statute – It was the lessee who had
to assert the title on the forest land by virtue of an agreement in
writing by a competent authority but no such agreement was
produced – Lessee would not be entitled to any right only on the
basis of an entry in the revenue record – Revenue record is not a
document of title – Order of the High Court set aside while that of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation is restored.
Indian Forest Act, 1927:
s.5 – Bar under – Discussed.
s.4 – Requirements of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1  The notification dated 11.10.1952 published in
terms of Section 4 of the Abolition Act was to the effect that all
estates situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State. The
extent to which uncultivated land which not vests in Gaon Samaj
was mentioned in Column 5 stating that 162 acres of Village
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 234
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
235
Kasmandi Khurd would not vest in Gaon Samaj. Such notification
has the effect that all rights, title and interest, shall be deemed to
be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of Section 117
of the Abolition Act, the State can transfer the lands by a general
or special order as prescribed therein including forests to Gaon
Sabha and to other local authorities. It is not the case of any of
the parties that the land, which was the subject matter of
notification dated 11.10.1952, was subject to any general or special
orders by the State to transfer the same in favor of Gaon Sabha
and/or any other local authority. Therefore, the land comprising
in notification dated 11.10.1952 unequivocally vests with the
State. It is thereafter that a notification dated 23.11.1955 was
published in respect of 162 acres of land situated in Kasmandi
Khurd. Such notification describes the land with boundaries
mentioned in the notification. Thereafter, another proclamation
was published under Section 6 of the Forest Act in respect of
162 acres of land including 20 bighas 13 biswas and 10 biswansi
of Khasra No.1576 of Village Kasmandi Khurd. The notification
under Section 4 of the Forest Act to declare any land as reserved
forest could be issued if the State has proprietary rights over
such land or if it is entitled to the produce thereof. The State
Government has the jurisdiction to declare a protected forest if
the land is the property of the Government over which proprietary
rights are exercised. The land measuring 162 acres was the
property of the Government in terms of the notification dated
11.10.1952. In terms of Section 4 of the Forest Act, the State
Government can issue a notification to constitute any land as
reserved forest. 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 be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by
roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible
boundaries. The notification dated 23.11.1955 has the boundaries
on all four sides mentioned therein. There is no other
requirement under Section 4 of the Forest Act. It is only Section
6 of the Forest Act which needs to specify the situation and limits
of the proposed forest. In terms of such clause (a) of Section 6 of
the Forest Act, the details of khasra numbers which were part of
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
236
SUP

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.