A.K. Kitty, J. - (1.) These connected special appeals arise out of a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court Dismissing writ petitions numbered 2528 of 1968 and 2529 of 1968 which were filed by the Appellants of the two appeals.
(2.) The material facts briefly are as follows: According to the Appellants, Th. Dan Singh Bisht was the Zamindar of an estate in the District of Bijnor. Two lease deeds dt. 4 -12 -1951 and 21 -12 -1951 were executed in favour of the Appellants by Shiv Shanker Lal, attorney of Th. Dan Singh Bisht. The said lease -deeds were duly registered on the two dates noted above. Under the first lease -deed dt. 4 -12 -1951, land measuring 301 bighas in village Jaspur and under the lease -deed dt. 21 -12 -1951, land measuring 648 bighas and 18 biswas in village Makranpur Garhi were leased out to the Appellants for agricultural purposes and under the lease -deeds the Appellants claimed to have become hereditary tenants. The Appellants entered into possession over the leased land in both the villages and according to them, on the vesting of estates in the State of U.P. under the provisions of UP ZA and LR Act, they became sirdars Under Sec. 19 of the said Act. Subsequently, they made applications under the provisions of U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 and under the said Act, they were granted Bhumidhari Sanads in respect of the leased land in the two villages on payment of the requisite amounts. Further, according to the Appellants, they were in cultivatory possession of the leased land in both the villages both before and after the vesting of estates in the State of U.P. On 8 -7 -1961, a notification Under Sec. 4 of the Indian Forest Act was issued followed later on by a notification Under Sec. 6 of the Act wherein the land leased out to the Appellants under the two aforesaid lease deeds was treated as and declared to be part of a reserve forest. The Appellants filed objections to the notification Under Sec. 6 of the Indian Forest Act. The objections were considered by the Forest Settlement Officer and decided in favour of the Appellants by an order dt. 6 -3 -1962 against this order of the Forest Settlement Officer, two appeals were preferred by the State Govt. These appeals were heard and dismissed by the Addl. Commr., Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly by an order dt. 17 -8 -1963. Thereafter, according to the contesting Respondents, namely, Respondents Nos. 1 and 4, two revisions were filed before the State Govt. against the order of the learned Addl. Commr. Subsequently, these revisions were transferred by the State Govt. to the learned District Judge, Bijnor in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Act XXIII of 1965. The learned District Judge allowed the revisions by a common order dt. 6 -5 -1968. He dismissed the objections of the Appellants. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge, the Appellants, as mentioned earlier, filed two writ petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution. These petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.
(3.) When the special appeals were heard earlier, a question arose as to whether any revision legally lay against the order of the Addl. Commr. dt. 17 -8 -1963. This question was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench has answered this question (reported in 1973 AWR 132) and has held that the two revisions which were filed by the State Govt. Under Sec. 1(4) of the Indian Forest Act, were legally maintainable and could be heard Under Sec. 16(5) of the U.P. Act XXIII of 1965. In view of the decision of the Flail Bench, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has confined his arguments other points.;