JUDGMENT By Court 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 petitioners 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 the disposal of this application, are these: On the 21st August, 1946, the petitioner took settlement of 70 big has 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 provision to section 29 (3) of the Act. Under the aforesaid notification dated the 6th January, 1953 an are 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 1951, a proceeding was starred 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. This area included the aforesaid 60 bighas of the petitioner's land. In the meanwhile, in the year 1951, a proceeding was starred 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 (I) that the rent fixed by the ex-intermediary was fair and equitable and rent was being said regularly by the settled. 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 4 (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, after holding a Spot enquiry in or about the year 1962, decided possession under order dated the 9th June, 1962 holding 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 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, income quential in nature, the order is affirmed successively by respondents no.4, and 2 in order of sequence. 3. Mr. S.C Mukherjee, learned court I for the petitioner, urged that respondents no.2 to 5 had clearly committed an error of law in holding that the order of the 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 or 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 the date of the passing of the order. 4. We think there is sufficient force in the contention of Mr. 4. We think there is sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that it was wrong on the part of respondent nos. 2 to 5 to hold that the order passed in petitioner's favour on merit under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was not binding on the authorities of the Forest department. That was a proceeding in which the state was a party. In presence of both sides after due enquiry, an order having been passed On merits by the Additional Collector it must be held to be binding on the State Government. It is not correct to say that for the purposes of the Bihar Land Reforms Act it should be held that the settlement was valid and genuine and, yet, for the purposes of the Indian Forest Act it should be otherwise. To that extent, therefore, we hold that the impugned orders suffer from an illicitly apparent on the face of the record. But that does not solve the problem. Assuming as it is the only assumption to make, that the petitioner had taken a valid and genuine settlement of lands from the ex-intermediary yet it cannot be gain said that State had no proprietary interest over the lands in question. That being so, under section 29 of the Act, a notification could be issued in respect of lands which are only Forest lands or waste lands. If, on the date of the notification, the lands in question were forest lands or waste land, a notification could be issued under section 29 of the Act. 5. That then brings us to the next question as to what is the point of time on which the character of the lands has to be judged. It does not need much argument to persuade us to hold that the relevant point of time for consideration as to whether the land fell within the term 'forest lands' or 'Waste lands' is the date of the notification and not the date on which the Forest Settlement officer is deciding the claims of the parties affected by the notification. It does not need much argument to persuade us to hold that the relevant point of time for consideration as to whether the land fell within the term 'forest lands' or 'Waste lands' is the date of the notification and not the date on which the Forest Settlement officer is deciding the claims of the parties affected by the notification. Learned Standing counsel, appearing for the respondents, conceded the legal position that the point of time relevant was the date of the notification, Learned Standing counsel also agreed that there was no clear finding in any of the impugned orders as to whether the lands claimed by the petitioner or any part thereof were waste or jungle lands on the 6th of January, 1953 which is the date of the notification, That being so, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 6. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned orders as contained in annexures 2 to 5 of the petition, are quashed and it is directed that the Forest Settlement officer (respondent no. 5) shall re-hear the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the observation made above. There shall be no order as to costs. Application allowed.