- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This petition has been filed praying that the letter dated 20. 7. 1994 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) sent by Divisional Forest Officer Southern Circle, Lakhimpur Khiri be quashed and a writ of mandamus be is sued commanding the respondents not to evict the petitioner from plot Nos. 112, 113, 114, 115, 121 and 122 of Deoria Jaswantpur, Pargana Khutar, Tehsil Puwayau district Shahjahanpur except by initiating proceedings under U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972.
(2.) IT is averred in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the writ petition that initially the plots in dispute were declared as surplus but vide order dated 31. 10. 87 passed by Prescribed Authority in Case No. 632 it was reverted back to him and mutation to that effect was made in the Khatauni of 1396-1401 F and as such he is tenure holder of the same. In paras 5 to 7 it is averred that the officers of the Forest Department started harassing the petitioner on the ground that the disputed plots were forest land and then the Sub- Divisional Officer Puwayau, after being satisfied about the genuineness of the petitioner's claim passed an order on 22. 3. 1994 directing the Station Officer of the con cerned Police Station to maintain status quo on the spot and a similar direc tion was again issued on 17. 6. 1994. In paragraphs 11 and 13 it is averred that the respondents (State of U. R and Divisional Forest Officer) are asserting that the plots in dispute have been declared as a reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. A Chak having been carved out over the disputed plots and he being in possession thereof, on account of applicability of Sec tion 28 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the title of the petitioner can not be disturbed merely on the ground that the land is covered by a notifica tion under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. The averments made in the writ petition are self-contradictory. Section 3 (5) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines 'land' and it means land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry and includes the site being part of the holding of a house or other similar structure and trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming the holding. Section 3 (11) defines a tenure holder and it means a bhumidhar or sirdar and includes an asami, a Government lessee or a cooperative farming society. Section 3 (1-A) defines a 'chak' and it means the parcel of land allotted to a tenure-holder on consolidation, it, therefore, shows that a forest land cannot come within the purview of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and a person cannot be tenure-holder of such a land. The ques tion as to whether the land in dispute is a reserved forest regarding which notification has been issued in the official Gazette as provided by Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act or is 'land' as defined in Section 3 (5) of U. P. Con solidation of Holdings Act of which the petitioner is a tenure holder requires investigation into questions of fact which cannot be done in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to issue a writ as prayed by the petitioner. In my opinion the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file a suit for injunction in the civil court for adjudication of his rights. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit is barred by virtue of Section 27-A of the Indian Forest Act and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek redress of his grievance in the Civil Court. Sri Asthana has further submitted that the petitioner being in possession cannot be dispossessed from the plots in dispute except in accordance with law and therefore as observed by the apex court in State of U. P. v. Dharmender Prasad Singh, AIR 1989 SC 997 and Krishna Ram v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed forcibly and the proper remedy for the respondent is to initiate proceedings under U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The contention raised by the learned Counsel, in my opinion, has no substance. Section 27-A of the Indian Forest Act provides that no act done, order made, or certificate issued in exercise of any power conferred by or under Chapter III shall, except as hereinbefore provided, be called in question in any court. A plain reading of the Section shows that if a notification has been issued under Section 20 of the Act specifying the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, the same cannot be challenged by filing a suit in the Civil Court. Therefore, the bar contemplated by this section would operate only with regard to that land which has been declared as reserved forest and if the land is not a reserved forest the bar would not operate. The petitioner claims that he is a tenure holder of the plots in dispute and the possession of the same had been given to him after a chak had been carved out in his favour in proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is obvious that no proceedings under the aforesaid Act could be taken with regard to a forest land for a chak with regard to such a land could be formed. Therefore, if the claim of the petitioner that a chak had been carved out in his favour is correct, the bar of Section 27-A of the Indian Forest Act would not operate against him. In the authorities cited by the learned Counsel it has been held that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain in possession thereof, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. In both the cases the person sought to be evicted had lawfully entered into possession of the property on the basis of a lease or licence in his favour and the action of the owner to forcibly dispossess him after termination of lease or licence was challenged. Such is not the case here. If the disputed land is a forest land, there can be no question of the petitioner having lawfully entered into possession of the same or having lawfully remained in possession thereof for any length of time. In" such a case the petitioner is a rank treespasser whose initial occupation of the forest land is itself illegal and without any authority of law. Therefore, no direction can be issued to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner under the U. P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1992.
(3.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition iand dismissed summarily. It will however, be open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for redress of his grievance. Petition dismissed. .;