- (1.) THIS is a defendants' appeal arising out of a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession over the land in dispute and obstructing him from appropriating the timber of the trees of the plots in suit. The dispute relates to 8 plots of village Chowk, Tappa Sonari, Pargana Tilpur, Tahsil Mahrajganj, district Gorakhpur.
(2.) PLAINTIFF's case was that there was a temple of Sri Gorakhnath in Gorakhpur, that the plaintiff was the Mahant of the temple, that the plots in dispute were groves planted by the temple in order to provide firewood for the maintenance of a perpetual fire (Akhand Dhuni) of Sri Gorakh Nath Ji and for use of every day Bhandara of Sadhus in the temple. The plaintiff-respondent claimed to be the Bhumidhar in possession of the plots in dispute. The Forest Department of the State, it was alleged illegally issued a notification declaring the said plots as Reserved Forest. PLAINTIFF's case was that the said plots did not constitute a forest. They were groves under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and could not be declared a reserved forest under the Forest Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 under the cover of a notification issued under the Forest Act was illegally interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the said plots. A notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was served on the State Authorities recruiting them to abstain from interfering with the plaintiff's possession but to no effect, hence the suit. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the Gaon Samaj and the Gaon Sabha of village Chowk, Tappa Sonari. Pargana Silpur, Tahsil Mahrajganj, district Gorakhpur, did not contest the suit. It was contested only by the State of U. P., defendant No. 1. The defence delivered was that the plots constituted a forest and a part of the land was waste as well. The plots vested in the State after the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. It was alleged that under a notification dated 11-2-1954 the land was notified as having vested in the Forest Department of the State and the State Government thereafter issued a Notification declaring the plots as Reserved Forest under Section 4 of the Act. Proclamation under Section 6 was issued, on 6-8-1954, inviting objections by the claimants. Since the plaintiff did not file any objection, the Forest Settlement Officer declared the land in dispute as Reserved Forest by order dated 15-5-1958. After the publication of the notification under Section 20 of the Act, the plaintiff filed an objection on 3- 5-59 which was rejected by the Forest Settlement Officer on 18-12-1959. An appeal filed against that order was allowed and the case was remanded. But on revision by the State the order of the Forest Settlement Officer was upheld and the order of the Additional Commissioner in appeal was set aside. The defendant pleaded that the State Government came in possession of the land in dispute on the vesting of estates under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and all rights, title and interest of the plaintiff, if any, were extinguished after vesting. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the land in dispute nor were the plots a grove. It was alleged that the trees were self grown and were not planted by the plaintiff or his predecessors in interest. The plaintiff accordingly could not claim any title in them. It was further pleaded that the suit was not cognizable by the Civil Court and was further barred by the provisions of the Forest Act as also by Sections 38, 41 and 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit on the findings that though the plots were a grove and the plaintiff was a Bhumidhar thereof but since he was out of possession he could not claim a relief of injunction. It further held that though the suit was not barred by the provisions of the Forest Act and the notification declaring the plots as Reserved Forest was illegal but since the suit involved a declaration of the plaintiff's Bhumidhari title to the plots, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the same. No decree accordingly could be granted in the plaintiff's favour. Since this appeal has been confined only to the question of the maintainability of the suit, I have found it unnecessary to refer to the other findings recorded by the trial court.;