Shushil Kumar Jha, S.Ali Ahmad, J. - (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the orders as contained in annexures 2 to 5 to the petition. These orders have been passed by the Forest Settlement Officer (Respondent No. 5), the District Division (respondent No. 4), the Commissioner, Tirhut Division (respondent No. 3) and the Member Board of Revenue (respondent No. 2) respectively. The effect of these orders is to reject the petitioner's claims for release of some lands from the notification purported to have been issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for compensation for depriving the petitioner from her possession over 60 bighas of land out of the 70 bighas taken in settlement by her in the District of Champaran.
(2.) The short facts, relevant for disposal of this application, are these: On the 21st August, 1946, the petitioner took settlement of 70 bighas of land of plot No. 190 of village Gamharia Dhawanipur within police station Shikarpur (Gauraha) in the district of Champaran. She claimed to be in possession of the aforesaid land on the basis of settlement from the ex-landlord. In token of the rent paid through the ex-landlord as also to the State of Bihar after the vesting of the intermediary interest under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, rent receipts were issued to her as a raiyat in respect of the land in question. In 1953, the State Government demarcated and is alleged to have taken possession of the petitioner's 60 bighas of land out of aforesaid 70 bighas taken in settlement by issuing a notification under the provisions to Section 29(3) of the Act. Under the aforesaid notification dated the 6th January, 1953 an area of 637.74 acres of land was proposed to be demarcated as 'protected forest'. This area included the aforesaid 60 bighas of the petitioner's land. In the meanwhile, in the year 1956, a proceeding was started against the petitioner by the Additional Collector under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for annulment of the settlement claimed to have been taken by the petitioner. Ultimately, after due enquiry, the 'Additional Collector held by an order dated the 28th March, 1958' (copy marked Annexure 1) that the rent fixed by the ex-intermediary was fair and equitable and rent was being paid regularly by the settlee it was further held that there was nothing to show that the settlement was made by the ex-intermediary either to defeat any provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or to cause loss to the State or to obtain higher compensation. The proceeding under Section 5(h) was accordingly dropped. Ultimately, when the petitioner's claim for release of the 60 bighas of land included in the notification under Section 29 of the Act came to be heard, the Forest Settlement Officer, as holding a spot enquiry in or about the year 1962, possession under dated the 9th June 1962 held. That on the date of the order the land claimed by the petitioner to have been taken in settlement was jungle land. He further held that the settlement, was a jungle land. He further held that the settlement by the petitioner from the ex-intermediary did not seem to be genuine and that the order passed by the Additional Collector under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was of no consequence to the proceeding before the Forest Settlement Officer. With slight modifications, inconsequential in nature, the order was affirmed successively by respondents No. 4. 8 and 2 in order of sequence.
(3.) Mr. S.C. Mukherjee learned Counsel for the petitioner, urged that respondents No. 2 to 5 had clearly committed an error of law in holding that the order of Collector under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was not entitled to any weight. It was next urged that in any event, the crucial date of point of time when the land has to be held to be either waste or forest land is the date of the notification under Section 29 of the Act and not the date of the passing of the order.;