Dilip Kumar Seth, J. - (1.) IT is alleged that the land which were within forest though were in possession of the petitioners and their predecessor -in -interest but the same were not correctly recorded. The Forest Settlement Officer, Obra by his order dated 13.5.1991 had separated the said land from the proposal of reserving the same for forest. An appeal was preferred against the said order. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 4.12.1991, Annexure -3 to the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' right were recognised in the land in dispute. Some review applications were filed challenging the order dated 4.12.1991 by one Badkau, being Review petition No. 3023 of 1992. Similarly one Laxman had also filed Review application challenging the said order dated 4.12.1991, registered as Review petition No. 3022 of 1992. By an order dated 23.4.1994 the said Review petitions were dismissed. The State had also filed Review application. The same was decided on 28th May 1994, Annexure -6 to the petition. It is this order which has since been challenged by means of the present writ petition. Sri S.D. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the order dated 28th May 1994 passed on the Review application filed by the State on 13.11.1992, against the order dated 4.12.1991, on the ground that the State had no right to file Review application, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court delivered on 20.11.1986 in Writ petition No. 1061 of 1982, Annexure -1 to the petition. Secondly, he contends that the Forest Act does not provide for any review. He further contends that the plot being inside the river the same vests under Section 117 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, upon the Gaon Sabha. Therefore the same can not be included within forest and, as such the petitioners' right can not be affected. No other point with regard to the correctness of the finding by the Reviewing authority has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY this was the burning question, which went to Hon'ble Supreme Court by reason of the writ petition moved by Banwasi Sewa Ashram. After 1986 order was passed, another order was passed on the same writ petition on 4.10.1993 which is quoted below: - - As suggested by the Record officer, we direct the closure of the Kaimoor Survey Agency with effect from 15th October 1993. Two survey units instead of 5 units may keep on functioning till further orders to complete the residual work. These 2 units shall, from 15th October 1993 onwards, function under the control of Collector, Sonbhadra. We direct the Revenue Secretary, Government of U.P. and the Collector, Sonbhadra to create a separate branch under the administrative control of Collector, Sonbhadra to look after the records which shall be surrendered as a result of the closure of the Kaimoor Survey Agency. The Collector shall secure the records. The Collector, Sonbhadra and the Revenue Secretary shall send a compliance report to this court by 15th November 1993. The Collector, Sonbhadra shall further send the progress report regarding the functioning of the 2 units by the first week of December 1993. The five Additional District Judges who are hearing the appeals shall continue to function till further orders. The Revenue Secretary shall send a report to this Court before 30th November, 1993 stating the number of appeals pending on that date to be disposed of by the Additional District Judge. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, the Divisional Forest Officer, district Sonbhadra has filed an affidavit wherein it is stated that during the physical verification made by the Forest Deptt. orders have been passed. He seeks directions from this Court for the review of those cases. The Forest department may bring those cases to the notice of the Additional District Judges who shall consider those cases in accordance with law. The matter appears to be a continuing one. After the order dated 4.10.1993 the review could have been preferred by the State despite the order dated 20.11.1986 since the matter having passed in the same proceeding the same shall be deemed to have been merged in the order dated 4.10.1993 by virtue of doctrine of merger. Therefore, it can not be said that by reason of order dated 20.11.1986 passed in the said writ petition the State Government is bound to accept whatever is the outcome of the order without any right to apply for review. It is no more open to the petitioners since the order of review has been passed after 4.10.1993. In writ petition No. 25512 of 1994 I had held that such review is permissible pursuant to the order dated 4.10.93 referred to above, on the reasons given therein. On similar grounds by reason of the order dated 4.10.93 quoted above, it was open to the State Government to carry on the review though filed before 4.10.93, after the order dated 4.10.93 was passed. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government is precluded from preferring review by reason of the order dated 20.11.1986 can not be sustained.
(3.) WHETHER there is any provision for review in the Forest Act or not, in view of the order dated 4.10.93 passed by the Apex Court the said question is no more to be agitated since the said order permitted review as is revealed from the order quoted above. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners also can not succeed, inasmuch as law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution.;