( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions have been filed against the orders passed by Additional District and sessions Judge, Myorpur, Mirzapur, in appeals arising out of orders passed by Forest Settlement officer, Mirzapur, deciding the claims of Adivasis and Banvasis living in the area covered by notification under S. 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, hereinafter referred to as the act. In Writ petition No. 10055 of 1989, order of respondent No. 2 passed on 22-9-1988; whereas in Writ petition No. 10056 of 1989, order of same officer passed on 7-10-1988 have been challenged. The learned Additional District Judge, Mirzapur by his aforesaid two orders has decided as many as 459 appeals arising out of the orders passed by Forest Settlement Officer. It may be recalled that these proceedings for protecting the rights and interest of Adivasis and Banvasis living in dudhi and Robartsganj tahsils of district Mirzapur were initiated under orders of the Honble supreme Court dated 20th November, 1986 reported in AIR 1987 SC p. 374, Banwasi Seva ashram v. State of U. P. It may be useful to quote here the direction of Honble Supreme Court. The relevant directions pertaining to the procedure which was to be adopted by the Record officer Forest Settlement Officer and Appellate authority are being quoted below (at pages 376 and 377) : "in regard to the lands notified under S. 4 of the Act, even where no claim has been filed within the time specified in the notification as required under S. 6 (c) of the Act, such claims shall be allowed to be filed and dealt with in the manner detailed below. Within six weeks from 1-12-1986, damarcating pillars shall be raised by the Forest Officers of the State Government identifying the lands covered by the notification under S. 4 of the Act. The fact that a notification has been made under S. 4 of the Act and demarcating pillars have been raised in the locality to clearly identify the property subjected to the notification shall be widely published by beat of drums in all the villages and surrounding area concerned. Copies of notice printed in Hindi in abundant number will be circulated through the Gram Sabhas giving reasonable specifications of the lands which are covered by the notification. Copies of notice printed in Hindi in abundant number will be circulated through the Gram Sabhas giving reasonable specifications of the lands which are covered by the notification. Sufficient number of inquiry Booths would be set up within the notified area so as to enable the people of the area likely to be affected by the notification to get the information as to whether their lands are affected by the notification, so as to enable them to decide whether any claim need be filed. The gram Sabhas shall give wide publicity to the matter at their level. Demarcation, as indicated above, shall be completed by 15-1-1987. Within three months therefrom, claims as contemplated under S. 6 (c) shall be received as provided by the statute. After the Forest Settlement Officer has done the needful under the provisions of the Act, the findings with the requisite papers shall be placed before the Additional District Judge of the area even though no appeal is filed and the same shall be scrutinised as if an appeal has been taken against the order of the authority and the order of the Additional District Judge passed therein shall be taken to be the order contemplated under the Act. " It is relevant to mention here that the notifications under S. 4 of the Act were published in respect of the area in dispute long back and in some cases even 20 years have passed. Normally under the provisions of the Act, the objections cannot be entertained after such a long time. However, in order to save Adivasis and Banvasis of area, from hardship and to protect their interest as they are illiterate and ignorant of their legal rights and were found to be handicapped, fresh proceedings were directed to be taken. After survey and demarcation of land and revision of the record the Forest Settlement Officer, the respondent No. 3 passed the aforesaid two orders considering the claims of several persons. He accepted the claims of some persons and excluded the same from the area to be notified as reserve forest under S. 20. Some area was left to be vested in Gaon Sabha as it was found not fit for being-declared as reserve foresl as the land was situated between agricultural holding of the persons residing there. He accepted the claims of some persons and excluded the same from the area to be notified as reserve forest under S. 20. Some area was left to be vested in Gaon Sabha as it was found not fit for being-declared as reserve foresl as the land was situated between agricultural holding of the persons residing there. It is not necessary to give details of the area so determined, as controversy in the present writ petitions is regarding the procedural part. As directed by Honble Supreme Court the finding and the requisite papers were to be placed before the Additional District Judge of the area even though no appeals were filed and the same were to be scrutinised as if the appeal had been preferred against the order of the authority and the order of the Additional District Judge passed therein shall be taken to be the order contemplated under relevant provisions of the Act. Thus the orders of respondent No. 3 and the entire record was placed before the respondent No. 2 which constituted appeals as directed. The respondent No. 2 in his order has also noted that in all these cases appeals have also been filed by the Forest department separately. The respondent No. 2 by the impugned order has set aside the orders passed by respondent No. 3 and has rejected the claims of all the persons which were accepted by the Forest Settlement Officer, respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2, however, has further observed in the operative part that if any objection is filed in accordance with law before Notification under S. 20, the disposal of the same shall not be affected. Aggrieved by these two orders dated 22-9-1988 and 7-10-1988 the present writ petitions have been filed by U. P. Legal Aid and Advise Board, Lucknow which was authorised by Honble supreme Court to look after the cases of Banvasis and Adivasis and to take appropriate sleps to ensure availability of alt the legal assistance to them. The other petitioners have also joined. ( 2 ) SRI G. N. Varma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, has assailed the order of respondent No. 2 on the ground that his observations regarding the procedure adopted by respondent No. 3 are incorrect and misconceived. The other petitioners have also joined. ( 2 ) SRI G. N. Varma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, has assailed the order of respondent No. 2 on the ground that his observations regarding the procedure adopted by respondent No. 3 are incorrect and misconceived. The claim of the petitioners has been rejected on technicalities and Adivasis and Banvasis shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. He has contended that if the order of the respondent No. 2 is maintained, the object and purpose of the direction given by the Honble Supreme Court to protect the interest and claims of the Banvasis and Adivasis shall be frustrated. Sri Varma has further submitted that in case the respondent No. 2 was not satisfied with the procedure adopted by Forest Settlement officer, he should have remanded the case for decision afresh and respondent No. 2 was not justified in rejecting the claims. The learned Standing Counsel, Sri Vinay Malviya, on the other hand, contended that the order passed by respondent No. 2 is correct and legal and do not suffer from any error of law. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the Honble Supreme Court granted relaxation to the petitioners only in respect of the steps which could be taken under S. 6 following the. notification under S. 4 of the Act but the claims could only be decided in accordance with the procedure laid down for the same in the Act and the Rules and the various manuals. ( 3 ) I have considered the rival contention of both the parties and I have thoroughly examined the impugned orders. A perusal of the order passed by respondent No. 3 will show that he has treated the oral objections raised during survey at par with the written objections. He further observed that in record and survey operations where a fresh settlement of the land is being done the rights of every persons whether he has filed the objection or not has to be decided and in view of the aforesaid reasons he decided the claims of those persons also who had not filed objections but their claims of possession were noted in survey and record operation in the relevant form. The respondent No. 2 appears to be very critical in respect of the aforesaid procedure adopted by respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2 appears to be very critical in respect of the aforesaid procedure adopted by respondent No. 3. In my opinion, respondent No. 2 was not justified in taking this view. Honble Supreme Court clearly observed that the claims as contemplated under s. 6 (c) of the Act shall be received as provided by the Statute. Section 7 of the Act is very relevant in this respect which is being quoted below: "inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer. The Forest Settlement Officer shall take down in writing all statements made under S. 6, and shall at some convenient place inquire into all claims duly preferred under that section, and the existence of any rights mentioned in S. 4 or S. 5 and not claimed under S. 6 so far as the same may be ascertainable from the records of Government and the evidence of any person likely to be acquainted with the same". From Section 7 (portions underlined) it is clear that the Forest Settlement Officer was obliged under law to enquire into the claims duly preferred under S. 6 and the existence of any right mentioned in S. 4 or S. 5 and not claimed under S. 6, so far as the same may be ascertainable from the record of the Government and the evidence of any persons likely to be acquainted with the same. Thus the procedure adopted by Forest Settlement Officer cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law as observed by respondent No. 2. The Forest Settlement Officer was under legal obligation to enquire into all the claims including those existence of which could be ascertained from the records of the Government and the evidence of any persons acquainted with such claim. The claims of the innocent and illiterate persons like Adivasis if could be ascertained from the government record already existing or prepared during the survey and revision of the record was rightly taken into account by the Forest Settlement Officer. The order of respondent No. 2, rejecting the claims on the ground that the objection in writing were not filed, cannot be said to be justified. The claims and objections, recorded during survey and revision of records and noted in Form No. 9, could be lawfully taken notice of under the provisions of S. 7. The order of respondent No. 2, rejecting the claims on the ground that the objection in writing were not filed, cannot be said to be justified. The claims and objections, recorded during survey and revision of records and noted in Form No. 9, could be lawfully taken notice of under the provisions of S. 7. It cannot be denied that form No. 9 is a Government record and was prepared by Government machinery. ( 4 ) THE respondent No. 2 has further observed that some area has been excluded from the notification under S. 20, on the basis that the rights over such land have already been given earlier but there is nothing on record to show as to how and when such area was excluded. Respondent No. 3 in paragraph No. 2 of his order has clearly observed that during this period the rights of several persons have already been recognised on such land by the competent court and such land has already been recorded as bhumudhari of these persons. Such area formed holdings of tenure holders and entries were existing in the government records. If the rights of tenure holders were recognised by the competent courts and order passed in that respect gained finality, respondent No. 3 was fully justified in excluding such area. The respondent No. 2 was not justified in setting aside the order of respondent No. 3 in respect of this area. At the most for purposes of clarification a direction could be issued to mention the orders of such competent court by which the rights of the persons were recognised as land holders. ( 5 ) THE next error pointed out by respondent No. 2 in the order of respondent No. 3 is that the procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code has not been observed and local inspection of the land has not been done by respondent No. 3 which was obligatory on his part in view of the provisions contained in Forest Manual and the Government Orders. It has also been said that the issues were not framed by respondent No. 3 which was necessary for determining the rights of the parties and the issues ought to have been framed considering the objection raised by the forest Department and other persons. It has also been said that the issues were not framed by respondent No. 3 which was necessary for determining the rights of the parties and the issues ought to have been framed considering the objection raised by the forest Department and other persons. A perusal of S. 8 of the Act will show that it confers power on the Forest Settlement Officer to enter into upon any land by himself or authorise any officer to survey and demarcate the land and to make a map for purposes of enquiry. This Section further confers power of the civil Court in the trial of such suit. Section 8 nowhere makes obligatory on the Forest Settlement Officer to frame issues for determining the rights and claims. The powers of the civil court have been conferred on the Forest Settlement Officer so that he may not feel handicapped while enquirying into the claims of the persons before him. The provisions contained in S. 8 (b) do not make it obligatory on the Forest Settlement Officer to frame issues. Though he can frame issues for determining the rights and claims, if in his opinion, it was necessary and expedient. However the order could not be set aside merely on this ground. In any view of the matter fault or error of non-framing of issues could not be attributed to the persons claiming right over the land. It could be an obligation of the officer inquiring into rights. The claims could not be rejected on this ground. The view taken by respondent No. 2 is not justified in this respect also. So far as the local inspection is concerned it could be carried out by r. 3 or by any subordinate authority under his directions as he also acted as Record and Survey officer. The power to make local inspection further remained with him and it could be availed of as and when deemed expendient and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The outright rejection of all claims on the aforesaid alleged discrepancy in the order of respondent no. 3 cannotbe justified. Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly contended that for such discrepancies as pointed out by respondent No. 2 in the impugned orders cases could at the most be remanded to Forest Settlement Officer for correcting errors and mistakes in the light of observations made. 3 cannotbe justified. Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly contended that for such discrepancies as pointed out by respondent No. 2 in the impugned orders cases could at the most be remanded to Forest Settlement Officer for correcting errors and mistakes in the light of observations made. ( 6 ) ANOTHER view taken by respondent No. 2, which, in by opinion, is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, is regarding the area of land left in favour of Gaon Sabha. Respondent no. 2 has observed that the Forest Settlement Officer had no authority in law to exclude this land in favour of Gaon Sabha as it could be done only by the State Government. Respondent No. 3 excluded this land mainly on the ground that the land of the aofresaid area is situated between the holding of cultivators of the area and such land cannot be used properly as reserve forest and thus be vested it in Gaon Sabha. The purpose of enquiry under Ss. 6 and 7 of the Act is to exclude the area which is not found fit for being declared as reserve forest. Under S. 6 read with s. 117 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act all land which vested in State on abolition of zamindari has been vested in Gaon Sabha by the orders of State Government. Before publication of the Notification under S. 4 of the Act Gaon Sabha of the concerned area must be having control over alt the area which did not form holding of any person. Thus any land which: was not found fit for being declared as reserve forest and also on such land no person has any right, claim or title, it could be lawfully left in favour of Gaon Sabha. This procedure is not new or uncommon and is usually done during other proceeding and other settlement operation. The ownership of the land ultimately lies with the State Government and State Government at any time by a general or special order can take back the land under its control. ( 7 ) LASTLY respondent No. 2 has observed that the applications and objections moved by claimants were not stamped as required under law. Claims have been rejected on this ground also. In my opinion, the view taken by respondent No. 2 is not justified. ( 7 ) LASTLY respondent No. 2 has observed that the applications and objections moved by claimants were not stamped as required under law. Claims have been rejected on this ground also. In my opinion, the view taken by respondent No. 2 is not justified. It is well established that before rejecting any applications, opportunity should be given to the concerned party to supply requisite stamps. Honble Supreme Court considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, exempted banvasis and Adivasis from filing appeal in formal manner and the record of the case itself was to constitute appeal before respondent No. 2. This spirit behind the order ought to have been maintained by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 could, at the most, be directed to ask the parties to make good the deficiency in stamps duty if it was necessary and required under law. But the claims could not be rejected. Under the provisions of the Act after Notification under S. 4 of the Act a kind of settlement takes place and in case no claim is preferred under S. 6 or the existence of which is not noted under S. 7 and Notification under S. 20 is published the rights and claims are extinguished finally under S. 9 of the Act. The respondent No. 2 ought to have taken care not to allow extinction of such rights of Banvasi and Adivasi for procedural and technical discrepancies. In view of the aforesaid observations the order of respondent No. 2 cannot be justified and it suffers from serious errors of law. ( 8 ) HOWEVER the other finding of respondent No. 2 that the rights have been granted in favour of dead persons or that in Form 9 somebody else is recorded in possession but the rights have been given to some other person are such which deserve reconsideration. Such defect as pointed out in the order of respondent No. 2 shall be considered again by the Forest Settlement Officer while deciding the claims. However in cases of dead persons care shall be taken to send notices to the heirs and they will be given full opportunity to defend their claims. The Forest Settlement officer shall consider each case separately and redetermine the rights in each individual case in the light of the observations made by Respondent No. 2. However in cases of dead persons care shall be taken to send notices to the heirs and they will be given full opportunity to defend their claims. The Forest Settlement officer shall consider each case separately and redetermine the rights in each individual case in the light of the observations made by Respondent No. 2. The effort on the part of the Forest settlement Officer should be to observe clarity in respect of each claim so that the appellate authority or the other higher courts may clearly follow the basis on which the rights and claims have been accepted. The care should be taken to avoid ambiguity and confusion. For the reasons recorded above, both the writ petitions deserve to be allowed in part and orders passed by respondent No. 2 subject to above are liable to be quashed and the Forest Settlement Officer, respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the claims afresh in the light of the observations made above. ( 9 ) FOR the sake of clarity and guidance of respondent No. 3, the directions are being categorised hereunder, which shall be followed by respondent No. 3 while deciding claims afresh :- (1) The order of respondent No. 2 rejecting the claims on the grounds of non-filing of written objections, non-framing of issues and for not making local inspection and on ground of deficiency in stamp duty in objections and applications is set aside and orders of Forest settlement Officer are restored. Such claims which have already been accepted need not be opened and inquired into again. (2) The exclusion of such area, regarding which orders were already passed by competent courts and the orders gained finality, shall be maintained, but full particulars regarding such orders passed by competent courts shall be thoroughly checked and inquired into and recorded in the order for better reference in future. (3) The area which existed between the holdings and which has been left in favour of Gaon sabha shall also be maintained. (4) The remaining cases in respect of which number and other details have been mentioned by respondent No. 2 in his order, shall be inquired into again in the light of observations made and discrepancies noted therein and such claims shall be decided afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the concerned parties. (4) The remaining cases in respect of which number and other details have been mentioned by respondent No. 2 in his order, shall be inquired into again in the light of observations made and discrepancies noted therein and such claims shall be decided afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the concerned parties. In case of dead persons such opportunity shall be given to their heirs and legal representatives. (5) After the orders are passed by respondent No. 3, the record shall be again placed before, respondent No. 2, for his orders as appellate authority as directed by Honble Supreme Court. ( 10 ) A long delay has already occurred hence the Forest Settlement Officer shall decide such cases at an early date preferably within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. The Notification under S. 20, if not already published shall not be published until the claims are decided by the Forest Settlement Officer and appellate authority as directed by Honble Supreme Court. It is further made clear that even if the notification has been published that shall not come in way of the Forest Settlement Officer to decide such claims, which are to be inquired into afresh under this order. ( 11 ) BOTH the writ petitions are allowed in part. The impugned orders dated 22nd September, 1988 and 7th October, 1988 are hereby quashed and the cases are remanded to the Forest Settlement officer, respondent No. 3 to decide afresh in the light of the observations made in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. ( 12 ) PETITIONS partly allowed. .