JUDGMENT : O.P. PRADHAN, J. 1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a writ of Mandamus has been sought against the Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the Petitioner over 60 acres of land of plot no. 4 of village Baint Kheri, tahsil Bajpur, district Nainital and not to evict the Petitioner forcibly from the aforesaid land as also the residential house and tube-well situated thereon. 2. Relevant fact leading to this writ petition may be briefly indicated as follows : The original Petitioner Gurumukh Singh together with his party claimed to be Bhumidhar of the aforesaid land on the basis of lease granted in 1953. A notification u/s 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued on September 9, 1959, proposing to declare certain area including a part of plot no. 4 aforesaid as reserved forest. Gurumukh Singh preferred objections against the said notification. These objections were rejected on April 30, 1965 by the Forest Settlement Officer, Nainital, whose decision was challenged by Gurumukh Singh in the Court of District Judge, Nainital. The case was accordingly remanded back to the Forest Settlement Officer with a direction to provide opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and decide afresh. After remand the Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated 8-3-72 released the 60 acres land of plot no. 4 in favour of Gurumukh Singh and his party on the ground that they were in cultivatory possession thereof since 1953. The Forest Department went in appeal against this order but this appeal was dismissed on 14-8-1972 by the District Judge, Nainital. The State Government challenged this decision of the District Judge by means of a writ petition bearing no. 106 of 1973 which was also dismissed by this Court on 18-2-1981. In the meantime, notification u/s 20 of the Indian Forest Act was issued on June 15, 1966 declaring the land of Babua Block along with 452 Bigha 12 Biswas land of plot no. 4 of village Baintkheri as reserved forest. Subsequent to the decision of this Court in the said writ petition, a joint survey measurement was made by the officers of the Forest and Revenue Departments on 28-2-1982 and it was reported that the Petitioner has also taken possession over some area of plot no. 3. 4 of village Baintkheri as reserved forest. Subsequent to the decision of this Court in the said writ petition, a joint survey measurement was made by the officers of the Forest and Revenue Departments on 28-2-1982 and it was reported that the Petitioner has also taken possession over some area of plot no. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer (Western Circle) district Nainital, thereafter, wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Nainital on 20-4-1992 saying that the Petitioner had to be evicted and so police and P.A.C., be deputed for the purpose. The District Magistrate also suspended the licencees of the original Petitioner's gun and revolver vide order dated 4-5-1982 on the basis of the police report that these arms might be used by the Petitioner at the time of eviction proceedings. This writ petition was accordingly filed by Gurumukh Singh saying that the Respondents wanted to forcibly evict him from the 60 acres land of plot no. 4 in the guise of a joint survey report dated 28-2-1982 which was illegal and without authority of law, particularly when a joint survey team had reported earlier on 16-9-1981 that survey measurement of village Baintkheri was not possible unless a fresh settlement of the said village was done. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, the claim over 60 acres of land of plot no. 4 has been given up by the Forest Department in para 17 thereof. It has, however, been asserted in the counter-affidavit that Gurumukh Singh encroached upon the other part of the reserved forest, particularly of Gabua Block and has raised constructions and fixed a tube-well on the land encroached upon. It has been further averred in the counter-affidavit that Gurumukh Singh has been cutting the uprooting timber and eucalyptus trees. Making a reference to the joint survey report dated 28-2-1982, it has been further claimed in the counter-affidavit that Gurumukhi Singh was found to have made encroachment over the reserved Forest land beyond 60 acres of land of plot no. 4. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The claim of Gurumukh Singh and his party over 60 acres land of plot no. 4 of village Baintkheri is undisputed and the same has also been upheld finally by this Court in Civil Misc. 4. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The claim of Gurumukh Singh and his party over 60 acres land of plot no. 4 of village Baintkheri is undisputed and the same has also been upheld finally by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 106 of 1973 decided on 18-2-1981 as per Annexure-2 of the writ petition. The contention, advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that no further encroachment has been made as alleged by the Forest Department and that the Forest Department illegally devised a way to arrange a joint survey by the officers of the Forest and Revenue Departments on 28-2-1982 in the absence of the Petitioner and it was illegally shown in the survey report as per Annexure-5 of the writ petition that the Petitioner has also taken possession over some area over and above 60 acres of land of plot no. 4. On behalf of the Respondents also, great emphasis has been laid on the joint survey carried out on 28-2-1987. On behalf of the Petitioner, this joint survey report was vehemently assailed on grounds more than one. 6. It has been pointed out on behalf of the Petitioner that the aforesaid joint survey measurement was carried out on 28-2-1982 in the absence of the original Petitioner Gurumukh Singh. However, it has been pleaded in the counter-affidavit that intimation had been given out this date to an adult son of Gurumukh Singh in writing as also by means of telephone. It appears from Annexure-4 of the writ petition that intimation in writing of the date fixed for joint survey to be carried out on 16-2-1982 was no doubt given to the Petitioner but there is nothing on record to indicate that any intimation in writing about the date of 28-2-1982, when the joint survey measurement was actually carried out was also given to Gurumukh Singh or served on any adult member of his family. It was incumbent upon the Respondents to have filed a copy of the intimation in writing said to have been given to Gurumukh Singh about the measurement which were actually carried out on 28-2-1982, particularly when it was specifically pleaded in the writ petition that no such intimation had been given about the date of 28-2-1982. It was incumbent upon the Respondents to have filed a copy of the intimation in writing said to have been given to Gurumukh Singh about the measurement which were actually carried out on 28-2-1982, particularly when it was specifically pleaded in the writ petition that no such intimation had been given about the date of 28-2-1982. In the circumstances, it may be assumed that no such intimation was actually given to Gurumukh Singh about the survey measurements carried out on 28-2-1982. 7. It was next contended that the joint survey measurements of 28-2-1982 were not carried out with the help of compass, nor was any fresh settlement done in between 19-6-1981 and 28-2-1982 to enable the joint survey team to carry out the survey measurements successfully. In this behalf it has been pointed out that in the joint survey report dated 16-9-1981 as per Annexure-3 of the writ petition, it was clearly reported that no survey measurements of village Gobra, Gajraula, Baint Kheri, Jogipura and Itawwa were possible without a fresh settlement. It appears from a perusal of this annexure that great disparity was found in the area of these villages in the maps of the Revenue and Forest Departments. In the counter-affidavit, it has been pointed out that this joint survey report of 16-9-1981 related to a different matter. Be that as it may, the fact remains that it was found by the joint survey team that it was not possible to carry out the survey measurements in the said villages without a fresh settlement. It has not been shown by the Respondents that any fresh settlement was done after 16-9-1981 in relation to village Baintkheri. It further appears from a perusal of joint survey report dated 28-2-1982 as per Annexure-5 of the writ petition and Annexure CA- 19 of the counter affidavit that no compass was at all used in the survey measurements. It has also been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that southern boundary of plot no. 4 was found changed on the spot and that measurements of distances from pillars 7 to 9 to pillar 3 (all the pillars being of the Forest Department) were not indicated either in the survey report in the accompanying map, even though pillar 3 was taken to be fixed for the purpose of survey measurement. 4 was found changed on the spot and that measurements of distances from pillars 7 to 9 to pillar 3 (all the pillars being of the Forest Department) were not indicated either in the survey report in the accompanying map, even though pillar 3 was taken to be fixed for the purpose of survey measurement. A perusal of the survey report dated 28-2-1982 indicates that it was simply stated therein that the distance between these pillars tallied with the map. To say the least, such survey measurements would hardly inspire confidence in a Court of law. Learned Counsel of the Respondents could not also satisfy us that the survey measurements were carried out in accordance with the established norms and principles of survey. Accordingly, it has to be found that the result of survey measurement carried out on 28-2-1982 by the joint team of Forest and Revenue Department cannot be safely relied upon to warrant an inference that Gurumukh Singh made encroachment' over the reserved forest area, over and above 60 acres of land of plot no. 4. 8. It does appear from a perusal of Annexure-6 of the writ petition that the Divisional Forest Officer Ram Nagar wrote to the District Magistrate, Nainital on the basis of joint survey report that police and P.A.C., be deputed together with a Magistrate for removing the encroachment made by Gurumukh Singh. Likewise, it further appears from a perusal of Annexure-7 of the writ petition that the licences to gun and revolver hold by Gurumukh Singh were suspended by the District Magistrate in the wake of the police report that Gurumukh Singh was likely to use these weapons at the time of his eviction from the Government land It, therefore, appears to follow that the Respondents wanted to forcibly evict the original Petitioner from the land allegedly encroached upon by him, otherwise than in accordance with law. The learned Standing Counsel could not bring to our notice any provision under law which could enable the Respondents to evict Gurumukh Singh in the manner indicated above. 9. It is noteworthy that by virtue of section 61A added to Indian Forest Act, 1927 by the Uttar Pradesh Act No. XXIII of 1985, Gurumukh Singh could be evicted from the land allegedly encroached upon by him in furtherance of the prosecution and conviction in a criminal Court u/s 26(a) and (h) of the Indian Forest Act. 9. It is noteworthy that by virtue of section 61A added to Indian Forest Act, 1927 by the Uttar Pradesh Act No. XXIII of 1985, Gurumukh Singh could be evicted from the land allegedly encroached upon by him in furtherance of the prosecution and conviction in a criminal Court u/s 26(a) and (h) of the Indian Forest Act. For facility of reference, section 61A is extracted hereunder : 61-A - Summary eviction of persons convicted of certain offences. (1) Where a Court convicts any person of an offence under clause (a), clause (d) or clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 26 or clause (c) or clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 33, it may when passing judgment, direct the eviction of such person from any land in respect of which the offence has been committed. (2) Any Court of appeal or revision may direct any order under subsection (1) passed by a Court subordinate thereto be stayed pending consideration by the former Court and may modify alter or annual such order. It therefore, appears to follow that the Respondents could take recourse , to the prosecution of Gurumukh Singh under the aforesaid provision of law and in case of his conviction. Gurumukh Singh could also to be summarily evicted from the land in question. However, no such proceedings were undertaken by the Respondents against Gurumukh Singh. 10. In view of what has been said above, the grievance ventilated by the original Petitioner that he was sought to be forcibly evicted without recourse to law appears to be well-founded It is open to the State Government in the Forest Department to challenge the right of the Petitioner over the land allegedly encroached upon in appropriate proceedings, but the Respondents cannot be allowed to forcibly evict the Petitioner from the aforesaid land otherwise than in accordance with law. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the Respondents are enjoined not to interfere in the possession of the Petitioner over 60 acres of land situated in plot no. 4 of village Baintkheri, tahsil Bajpur district Nainital and further not to evict the Petitioner forcibly from the aforesaid land otherwise than in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.