Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.R. Singh, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioners claim the following principal reliefs: "(i) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 30.11.95 passed by Respondent No. 1 in Review Petition No. 651 of 1994 (Annexure No. 6). (ii) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the portion of order dated 24 May, 1993 passed by Respondent No. 1 and 27.10.89 passed by Respondent No. 2 with respect to plot No. 284 only."
(2.) The petitioners claim to be bhumidhars of plots details of which find mention in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. The proceedings which are impugned in this petition emanate from a notification issued under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 (1927 Act) in terms of which the plots referred to above came to be included in a preliminary notification issued under the 1927 Act for the purpose of constitution of a "reserved forest". The Forest Settlement Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "FSO") in terms of his order of 27 October 1989 upheld the claim of the applicant in respect of all plots except for a part of plot No. 284. He took the view that since the same was existing in the shape of a "nala", it was liable to be included in the proposed reserved forest. In the suo moto appeal which was taken against the said order, the Additional District Judge upheld the decision rendered by the FSO in terms of his judgment dated 24 May 1993.
(3.) The respondents thereafter moved an application for review of the judgment dated 24 May 1993. This review was allowed by the Additional District Judge in terms of an order dated 30 November 1995. By the said order the judgment of 24 May 1993 was reviewed and the original proposal which sought inclusion of all the plots over which the petitioners claimed rights came to be restored and included in the proposed reserved forest. The petitioners in paragraph 28 of the writ petition have stated that the review petition was allowed without inviting any objections from the petitioners. It is further asserted that the petitioners had no notice or knowledge of these proceedings and only came to know about the passing of the said order on 30 October 1999 when they approached the office of the concerned Lekhpal for the purposes of obtaining the extract of the relevant revenue records. It is at this stage that the instant writ petition came to be filed.;