Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned standing counsel for the Petitioner -State and learned Counsel for contesting Respondents.
(2.) A notification under Section 4 of Forest Act was issued on 29.4.1955 in respect of various agricultural lands situate in different villages of Tehsil Puranpur, District Pilibhit, including village Bhaipur, where land in dispute is situate. Annexure -2 to the writ petition is the typed copy of the said notification which at sl. No. 45 contains the name of the village Bhaipur and total area is shown to be 175.56 acres. No particulars like plot numbers have been given. The total area is shown to be bounded on east by khet (field) & on all the other three sides by Zamindara Jungal. Annexure -3 to the writ petition is typed copy of gazette notification dated 9.6.1965 published in U.P. gazette on 7.8.1965 under Section 20 of Forest Act. It relates only to plot No. 461/1 area 148.68 acres situate in village in question i.e. Bhaipur.
(3.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgments, orders and decrees dated 23.3.1994, 7.8.1995 and 2.2.1998 (Annexures 6,7 and 9 to the writ petition respectively). The first judgment contained in Annexure -6 was passed on 23.3.1994 by Sub Divisional Officer, Pooranpur District Pilibhit in suit No. 30 of 1993 -94 - Jaswant Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. That was a suit under Section 229 -B of U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The suit was decreed and Plaintiffs -Respondents were declared to be bhoomidhar with transfer rights. Against the said judgment and decree State of U.P. filed appeal No. 94 of 1994. Additional Commissioner (Judicial -Ist), Bareilly division, Bareilly dismissed the appeal on 7.8.1995. Thereafter State of U.P. filed revision before the Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad being revision No. 29 of 1995 -96. Revision was dismissed on 2.2.1998 hence this writ petition. The suit related to old plot No. 461/3 new number of which was 167. The said plot had been purchased through registered sale deed dated 25.10.1966 by the Plaintiffs Respondents. Total purchased area was 18.5 acres. The occasion to file the suit arose because after conclusion of consolidation it was found that name of the State had been entered on the land in dispute. One of the objections taken by the Petitioner before the courts below as well as this Court was that suit was barred by Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The said section is quoted below: 49. Bar to Civil Jurisdiction. - -Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of right of tenure -holder in respect of land lying in an area, for which a [notification] has been issued [under Sub -section (2) of Section 4] or ad -judication of any other right arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and no Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act. (proviso not relevant);