JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. 1. The order passed by the consolidation authorities rejecting the claim of the petitioner is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The plot in dispute was recorded in the name of Forest Department in the basic year. The petitioner filed an objection claiming groveholder rights which, according to him, was his ancestral grove. The case of the opposite parties was that in the year 1955 a notification was issued by the Forest Department that the said land will be taken as reserved forest and, accordingly, the petitioner has no right over the land or the trees standing over the same. 2. The matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer. No notification issued by the Forest Department under section 6 or section 20 of the Forest Act was filed. On behalf of the petitioner some old documents were filed to show that it was grove and the names of the ancestors of the petitioners were entered over the land in dispute. Certain papers pertaining to court cases were also filed in which father of the petitioner was held to be groveholder. In view of the notification issued by the Forest Department that the land, in dispute was taken as forest land the objection of the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that merely because notification was issued by the U.P, Government under section 117 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and by the Forest Department proposal under section 4 of the Act, to take the land as forest land, that would not make it a forest land in the absence of any further proceeding. It could not vest in the State unless notification under section 20 of the Forest Act was issued by the Forest Department. The contention of the petitioner is not without force. No papers were filed by the opposite parties that any proceedings were taken and the land vested in the Forest Department. As such the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. The writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 30.1.73, 22.6.73 and 15.12.78, (Annexures 1 to 3) passed by opposite parties 1 1o 3 respectively, are quashed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to restore the objection to Nits original number and pass formal order. As such the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. The writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 30.1.73, 22.6.73 and 15.12.78, (Annexures 1 to 3) passed by opposite parties 1 1o 3 respectively, are quashed and the Consolidation Officer is directed to restore the objection to Nits original number and pass formal order. However, it will be open to the opposite parties to file any document in respect of their claim that it is forest land and a declaration, which is final, has been made. No order as to costs. (Petition allowed)