STATE OF U.P. versus DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 191 · Decided: 08-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. 
JULY 8, 1996 
(KULDIP SINGH, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Indian Forest Act, 1927-Section 2(}-Notification of land as rese1ved 
forest-A person holding the land as Sirda1-Not vested with proplietory 1ights 
under U.P .. Consolidation of Holdings Act-State being proprietor of the 
la1ul-Notification issued u/s 4 valid-Jurisdiction of Consolidation 
Autholities to go behind Oie notification. 
A 
B 
c 
A notification dated 19.8.1963 declaring the land in dispute to be 
reserved for forest was issued u/s 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The 
respondents recorded as Sirdari-holders of the land claimed before the 
authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 that they D 
were in possession of the land and had acquired Sirdari rights and because 
they had become owners of the land, the land was illegally subjected to the 
proceedings under the Act and that the notification declaring the land as 
reserved forest was illegal. The Consolidation Authorities accepted the 
objections of the respondents. The writ petitions under Article 226 of the 
Constitution filed by the State challenging the orders of the Consolidation 
Authorities were dismissed by the High Court, upholding the orders of the 
Consolidation Authorities, while holding that by virtue of their status as 
Sirdari the respondents were proprietors of the land. Hence these appeals. 
E 
The appellants contended that the respondents did not raise any 
objection/claim before the authorities under the Act. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : A person who was holding the land as Sirdar was not vested 
with proprietory rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land G 
Reforms Act. He was a tenure holder and the proprietory rights vested 
with the State. The State being the proprietor of the land under the 
Abolition Act it was justified in issuing the notification under Section 4 of 
the Indian Forest Act. The nature of the land - whether covered by Section 
3 of the Act or not - could only be determined on the date of the notification H 
191 
192 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A under Section 4 of the Act which was issued on March 29, 1954. The Forest 
Settlement Ollicer has the powers of a civil court and his order is subject 
to appeal and finally revision befor" the State Government. The Act is a 
complete code in itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring and 
notifying a reserve forest. Once a notification l!nder Section 20 of the Act 
B declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all the rights in the 
land claimed by any person come to an end and are no longer available. 
The notification is binding on the Consolidation Authorities in the same 
way as a decree of the civil court. The respondents could very well file 
objections and claims including objection regarding the nature of the land 
before the Forest Settlement Otlicer. They did not file any objection or 
C claim before the authorities in the proceedings under the Act. After the 
notification under Section 20 of the Act, the respondents could not have 
raised any objections qua the said notification before the Consolidation 
authorities. The Consolidation authorities were bound by the notification 
which had achieved finality. [196-F-G, 198-B-D] 
D 
E 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 744-759 
of 1977. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.1.76 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 811 and 856-879 of 1970. 
R.C. Verma and R.B. Misra for the Appellant. 
K.P. Bagaria for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. The land in dispute measuring 22.11 acres was 
notified as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 
(the Act) by the nutification dated August 19, 1963. Respondents in the 
appeals herein, claimed before the authorities under the U.P. Consolida-
tion of Holdings Act 1953 (the Consolidation Act) that they were in 
G possession of the land and had acquired Sirdari rights. They further 
claimed that the land was illegally subjected to the proceedings under the 
Act because they had become owners of the land. Since the land was not 
the property of the Government ·· according to them-the notification 
declaring the land as reserved forest was illegal. The Consolidation 
H Authorities accepted the objections of the respondents. The writ petitions 
STAIE v. DY. DmECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [KUL

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