RAJIV SHARMA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN nutshell, the case of the petitioners is that the Village Bhainswar, Pargana Badhar, Tehsil Ghorawal (Formerly Robertsganj), District Sonebhadra was noticed for consolidation operation under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 21.7.1987. On 23.11.1982, the Forest Settlement Officer passed an order directing the name of the Forest Department to be expunged from the land in dispute and the names of the petitioners be recorded as the plots are bhumidhari of the petitioners. The consolidation proceedings have been finalized upto the stage of Section 10 of the Act and the rights and title of the petitioners had been decided, but the entire proceedings were cancelled by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 26.5.1992. Against the order of cancellation of consolidation proceedings, the Forest Department filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer by the order dated 28.4.1995. Without taking recourse to the proceedings, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. Refuting the allegations, learned Standing Counsel asserts that at the time of abolition of Zamindari, 1952, the petitioners were not recorded in possession over the land in dispute and moreover, in the survey, it has come to the light that the land was recorded as Jungle, Jhari, Parti and Banjar and as such, the owner of the land in dispute was the State Government. A notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was issued on 18.3.1968. It is relevant to point out here that as per provisions contained in Section 5 of the Act,m the tenure holder found to be actual owner in possession of the land notified under Section 4 of the Act is entitled to make a claim. As the petitioners did not fulfil the requisite requirement, as per Section 4 of the Act, as such, no right accrues in the petitioners. Moreover, after lapse of statutory period after notification under Section 6 of the Act, no objection whatsoever was filed filed by the petitioners. As such, notification declaring the land to be the reserved forest area under Section 20 of the Act has been passed. Further, it is submitted that the petitioners have filed forged document manufactured by the petitioners said to be the judgment and order passed by the Settlement Officer, during the consolidation proceedings before the Consolidation Authority in respect of the land in dispute. On enquiry, it was found that no such case was filed before the aforesaid authority.
(3.) REFUTING the allegations of the learned Standing Counsel, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Forest Department has always been acting, without looking into the records or verifying the facts even from the Gazette published by them. In the impugned order, it says that the Gazette under Section 4 (1), in respect of plot No. 555N has been issued and thus, the land vests with the Forest Department. It is brought to the notice of the Court that no notification under Section 4 (2) has been issued. The notification under Section 4 (2) is claimed to have been issued on 18.3.1968 which was published on 10.8.1968.;