ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out of the proceedings under the Indian Forest Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are these: The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs in the petition : "It is, therefore, prayed (1) that by a writ of certiorari the order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated the 17-11-1969 Annexure 6A and of the District Judge, Mirzapur dated the 30th Nov., 1974 Annexure VII be quashed and it be declared that the properties in villages Chhato, Hinauta, and Jamaiyatpur belong to the petitioners and not liable to be declared forest area or waste land under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, (2) that to pass such other and further order as it may deem fit and, (3) award costs of this petition to the petitioners." 3. The petitioners claimed to be the lessees of lands in three villages, Chhato, Hinauta and Jamaiyatpur in the district of Mirzapur. They claimed that they had obtained the lease from the then Zamindar with effect from 7th July, 1946. It was claimed that their names stood mutated in the revenue records and that in the mutation case the Forest Department U. P. and the Gaon Samaj of the said three villages were parties and, therefore, the order in the mutation case dated 24th Mar. 1956 became final. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 1 to the petition. The petitioner claimed that they were in the occupation of the said plots both by cultivation and by taking produce of the trees and by the realisation of Kharcharhi by the transportation of produce. It was further alleged that the land contained mostly timber trees constituting grove. A notification dated 19th Dec., 1955, under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act was published in the U. P. Gazette dated 24th Dec., 1955. The proclamation under Section 6 of the said Act was also made. The petitioners filed claim in respect of the disputed land on 24th Oct. 1956. The Forest Settlement Officer, Mirzapur by his order dated 5th April, 1967 accepted the claim of the petitioners and released the land which was claimed to be covered by the lease granted to the petitioners on 7th July, 1946 by the landlord. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the petition. 1956. The Forest Settlement Officer, Mirzapur by his order dated 5th April, 1967 accepted the claim of the petitioners and released the land which was claimed to be covered by the lease granted to the petitioners on 7th July, 1946 by the landlord. A true copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the petition. Thereafter the State Government through the Divisional Forest Officer filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act. The same was partly allowed by the appellate court by its judgment dated 18th Oct., 1957, a true copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the petition. Thereafter the petitioners filed a writ petition in this court which was dismissed on 10th Feb., 1958, a true copy of the judgment of this court is Annexure 4 to the petition. A special appeal against the said judgment of the learned single Judge was dismissed on 4.4.1961. It seems that in the meanwhile a revision was filed under Section 18 (4) of the said Act by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division, Mirzapur against the said appellate judgment dated 18th October, 1957. The State Government allowed the said revision on 16th Aug. 1958. A true copy of the State Government revisional order is Annexure 5 to the petition. It was directed its the revisional order: "The Governor has ordered that the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, will have an enquiry made into possession and will thereafter decide finally and specifically the. extent of area in respect of which the claim of the objector should be admitted and also the area in respect of which the claim of the-objector should be dismissed." Thereafter the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, heard the appeal and allowed the same on 12-10-1961. The order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 5-4-1957 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Forest Settlement Officer for a fresh decision. The Forest Settlement Officer after the remand conducted the proceedings again and' on 15th Jan., 1963 he rejected the petitioners" claim. Against the said order dated 15th Jan. 1963 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division who set aside the said order dated 15th Jan. 1963 and remanded the case again to the Forest Settlement Officer. A true copy of the appellate courts judgment dated 26th June, 1963, is Annexure 6 to the petition. On 17th Nov. Against the said order dated 15th Jan. 1963 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division who set aside the said order dated 15th Jan. 1963 and remanded the case again to the Forest Settlement Officer. A true copy of the appellate courts judgment dated 26th June, 1963, is Annexure 6 to the petition. On 17th Nov. 1969 the Forest Settlement Officer rejected the claim of the petitioners by his order of the said date, a true copy whereof is Annexure 6-A. Thereafter the. petitioners filed an appeal but the same was. dismissed by the appellate courts judgment dated 30-11-1974, a certified copy whereof is Annexure 7 to the petition. Now, the petitioners, have come up in the instant petition and in support thereof I have heard Shri G. P. Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioners and in opposition, learned Standing Counsel has made his submission. The relief which has been claimed in the petition has been reproduced above and it is to be seen that the petitioners desire that the order of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 17th Nov., 1969 (Annexure 6-A) and the appellate-judgment of the District Judge, dated 30th Nov., 1974 (Annexure 7) should be quashed. One of the questions which was raised before the appellate court was that the revision which was filed before the State Government and which was allowed by the State Governments order dated 16th Aug., 1958 was incompetent and without jurisdiction and if the said contention were to be accepted then it will follow that the appellate courts earlier judgment dated 18th Oct., 1957 had become final. This is clear from Section 18 (4) of the Indian Forest Act itself. The said contention, however, was repelled and it was held that the revision under Section 18 (4) was competent and, therefore, the revisional order passed by the State Government on 16th August, 1958 was a good and binding order. The appellate Court below placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court in Special Appeal No. 14 of 1970 Subedar Dilip Singh v. State of U. P. decided on 21st Feb., 1972. In my opinion, this view of the appellate court was not correct. The appellate Court below placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this court in Special Appeal No. 14 of 1970 Subedar Dilip Singh v. State of U. P. decided on 21st Feb., 1972. In my opinion, this view of the appellate court was not correct. Section 18 (4) of the Indian Forest Act lays down as under: - "(4) The order passed on the appeal by such officer or Court, or by the majority of the members of such court, as the case may be, shall, subject only to revision by the State Government, be final." By the U. P. Amendment Act No. 23 of 1965 amendment was effected in the said section and Section 18 (4) after amendment has stood as under in this state : "(4) The order passed on appeal shall, subject to the provisions of Section 22, be final." The unamended Section 18 (4) was interpreted by a Division Bench of this court in Raghunath Singh v. State (1961 All LJ 686) and it was held that when the word "revision" was used in Section 18 (4) it was not intended that there should be an independent power of revision under the said provision. Revision under Section 22 was in contemplation. Section 22 of the Act is as follows : - "22. Power to revise arrangement made under Section 15 or Section 18. The State Government may, within five years from the publication of any notification under Section 20, revise any arrangement made under Sec. 15 or Sec. 18, and may for this purpose rescind or modify any order made under Section 15 or Section 18, and direct that any one of the proceedings specified in Section 15 be taken in lieu of any other such proceedings, or that the rights admitted under Section 12 be commuted under Section 16." It was held that the revision to the State Government could lie only in respect of any arrangement under Section 15 or in respect of such arrangement made under Section 15 as modified by the appellate court under Section 18. There could be no revision against an order passed in the appeal when such appeal was directed against an order passed under Section 11 or Section 12 of the Act. This view of the Division Bench has beer-affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. There could be no revision against an order passed in the appeal when such appeal was directed against an order passed under Section 11 or Section 12 of the Act. This view of the Division Bench has beer-affirmed by a Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. Saddiqi v. State of U. P. (1968 All LJ 238). The Full Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 14 of 1970, on which the appellate court placed reliance, was delivered in.. respect of such revision to which Section 16 (5) of the Indian Forest (Uttar Pradesh) Amendment Act, U. P. Act 23 of 1965 was applicable. Section 16 (5) in the Amendment i Act is as under : - "Any petition for revision presented to the -State Government, purporting to be made-under sub-section (4) of Section 18 of the principal act, as it stood before its amendment by this Act, at any time within five-years before the commencement of this Act, shall whether pending on the date of such commencement with the State Government or purporting to have been decided by it before such date under the said sub-section, be referred by the State Government to the Tribunal having jurisdiction, and the Tribunal may after giving to the parties an opportunity of being heard, confirm, set aside or modify the order under revision, or remand the case to the forest settlement officer withes such directions as it thinks fit: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to require the State Government to refer to the Tribunal any petition made by a Forest Officer which the Stater Government does not think fit to be pressed." The Full Bench in Subedar Dilip Singhs-case held that in view of the provisions contained in Section 16 (5) and in Sec. 16 (6) revisions could be held to be maintainable-under Section 18 (4) and the scope of such-revision was not circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 22 of the Act. In other words, even when a revision was not in respect of an arrangement under Sec. 15 of the Act or in respect of such an arrangement under Section 15 as modified under Section 18 of the Act, still, the same was held to be maintainable under Section 18 (4) in conjunction with the provisions contained in Section 16 (5) and Section 16 (6) of the Amendment Act. It should be seen that the Full Bench made a reference to the earlier Division Bench in Raghunath Singhs case ((1961) All LJ 686) but did not say that the said Division Bench pronouncement was erroneous. On the other hand, the Full Bench specifically stated that after the said Division Bench pronouncement the amendment was made in 1965 and the case before the Division Bench was decided in the light of the provisions contained in Section 16 (5) and Section 16 (6) of the Amendment Act. It is, therefore, clear that in a situation where Section 16 (5) of the Amendment Act did not apply and the maintainability of the revision had to be decided on the basis of the unamended Section 18 (4) the law laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench case which was subsequently approved in the said Full Bench decision reported in 1968 All LJ 238 would therefore, be binding on me sitting singly. In the instant case, it is not disputed that Section 16 (5) was not applicable. The revision in the instant case was made to the State Government earlier than the period of five years mentioned in Section 16 (5) of the amendment. In fact, as has been stated above, the revision petition was decided on 16th Aug. 1958 whereas the Amendment Act came into effect on 23rd Nov. 1965 when it was published in the U. P. Gazette. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the law laid down in the aforesaid Division Bench pronouncement in Raghunath Singh case, as subsequently approved by the Full Bench in 1968 All LJ 238, was applicable and not the Full Bench decision in Special Appeal No. 14 of 1970, Subedar Dilip Singh v. State on which the lower appellate court placed reliance. The aforesaid revision decided and allowed by the State Government on 16th Aug. 1958 was not maintainable and the State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said revision. The revisional order dated 16th Aug. 1958 is, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction and must be ignored. In this view of the matter, as I stated above, the appellate court judgments dated 18th Oct., 1957 (Annexure 3) should be held to have become final in terms of Section 18 (4) of the unamended Act which was then in force. 4. The revisional order dated 16th Aug. 1958 is, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction and must be ignored. In this view of the matter, as I stated above, the appellate court judgments dated 18th Oct., 1957 (Annexure 3) should be held to have become final in terms of Section 18 (4) of the unamended Act which was then in force. 4. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to go into other questions which have been raised in the petition. All proceedings which took place after the aforesaid appellate order dated 18th Oct. 1967 either before the State Government in the revision or before the Additional Commissioner in pursuance of the directions given in the revisional order or thereafter before the Forest Settlement Officer or before the appellate court must be held to be without jurisdiction. The appellate courts order dated 18th Oct. 1957 had become final under Section 18 (4) of the Act and the Forest Settlement Officer was bound to carry out the directions given 'in the said appellate order. 5. Accordingly, I allow this petition and quash the following orders : (1) The order dated 16th Aug. 1958 (Annexure 5). (2) The appellate courts order dated 12th Oct. 1961. (3) The appellate courts order dated 26th June, 1963 (Annexure 6). (4) The Forest Settlement Officers order dated 17th Nov., 1969 (Annexure 6-A). (5) Lastly, the appellate courts judgment dated 30th Nov. 1974 (Annexure 7). 6. The case is remanded to the Forest Settlement Officer with a direction that he should decide the case in accordance with the directions given in the appellate courts judgment dated 18th Oct, 1957, a true copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the petition. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.