SIDDHARTHA VARMA,J. - (1.) By a resolution dated 6.2.1991, the petitioners and the private respondents were allotted plots of lands in village-Bishar, Post Office and Pargana Barhar, Tehsil Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra for agricultural purposes. The required approval was also granted on 7.4.1991 by the Deputy Collector, Ghorawal and, thereafter the petitioners continued in possession. However, after six and half years on 17.6.1997 at the behest of the Forest Department, a case under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 was registered as case no. 26/1998. Show cause notices were issued to the petitioners and the private respondents. Objections were filed. However the respondent no.3 i.e. the Additional Collector/District Magistrate, Sonbhadra on 30.3.2002 held that the pattas had to be cancelled. The petitioners filed a revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.6.2009 of the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur. Hence the instant writ petition.
(2.) Sri Ram Niwas Singh, senior counsel for the petitioners assisted by Sri Vinay Kumar Singh Chandel, Advocate has raised the following Submissions: (I) The application as was made by the Forest Department was only to the extent that a notification with regard to the land in question under Section 4 of the Indian Forests Act had been issued on 18.3.1968 under the Indian Forest Act and, there was yet no publication of any notification under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, therefore, the allotment as was made under Section 195 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 could not be nullified as no Reserved Forest had yet been declared. (II) The village, after allotment, had undergone consolidation and despite the fact that the names of the patta holders were entered in the basic year entries no objection was made by any State authorities or the Forest Department, meaning thereby that owing to a clear bar of Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 proceedings for cancellation of pattas could have been initiated and proceeded with. (III) In the absence of any objections, the consolidation authorities had adjudicated various cases with regard to the land in question and had found that the petitioners' pattas were in order. Now no objection could be raised with regard to the pattas of the petitioners as any objection after the issuance of Section 52 notification under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 would be barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. (IV) Learned counsel has submitted that even though, nowhere, at any point of time was the question raised that the land in question was of the Gaon Sabha and the same had been resumed by the State Government the question could now be raised in the counter affidavit of the writ petition for the first time in the instant writ petition. Never before was either the case of resumption agitated nor adjudicated upon and in all probability the State had again handed over the land to the Gaon Sabha, which in its turn had allotted the land to the petitioners. (V) He submits that as per the decision in AIR 1978 SC 851 (Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others) , the case of the respondents could be improved by means of affidavits. The order impugned had to be judged on its own merit. (VI) Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had although been in possession and it would be extremely harsh on the part of the State now to dispossess them. He has submitted that even in the High Court there was an interim order and the petitioners have continued to be in possession. (VII) When there was no notification under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act then the Forest Department could take possession of the petitioners' land even if the pattas were cancelled and, therefore, it could be considered to be a "person interested" under Section 198 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. (VIII) He submits that the State Government had contested the pattas either at the consolidation stage or at the stage when the pattas were being sought to be cancelled under Section 198 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. They had thus lost their right to contest the writ petition or even the pattas of the petitioners. Definitely thus the question regarding resumption could now be raised.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel in reply however, submitted that since the land in question has been resumed by the State Government by Gazette notification dated 9.8.1967 and as there was a notification under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, the lands in question could have been allotted to the petitioners and the private respondents. Further, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that it mattered little that a notification under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act was yet made and, therefore, he submitted that the pattas were rightly cancelled.;