JUDGMENT : - R.K.Agrawal 1. THIS writ petition has been filed by Bhairao Ram (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) seeking following reliefs : (1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned ex parte order dated 3.6.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-16). (2) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the entire proceedings conducted by respondent No. 1 in passing the impugned order dated 3.6.2002 as illegal, unconstitutional and void. (3) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents not to restrain the petitioner in pursuance of impugned order/judgment passed on 3.6.2002 from his right of excavation of minor mineral on the basis of lease deed executed on 12.3.2001, which remained operative upto 29.6.2002, the date of passing the order by District Magistrate/Mines Officer, Sonebhadra in furtherance of impugned order pertaining to land of plot No. 246/1 area 10 acres situated at village Gurdah, pargana-Agori, Tehsil Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra. (4) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of the case. (5) to award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. SINCE the counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged inter se parties, with the agreement of the learned counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is being heard and decided on merit finally at the stage of admission itself in accordance with the Rules of the Court. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the State Government had issued a Notification on 9.4.1969 purported to be under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that it had been decided to constitute the land mentioned in the Schedule to be reserved forest. It included plot No. 716 situated in village Gurdah, Pargana-Agori, Tehsil Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra, having area of 485 bighas and 15 biswas. It also appointed Shri Balwant Ram, Deputy Collector, Mirzapur, as authorised Settlement Officer under the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 4 (1) of the Act. 3. It included plot No. 716 situated in village Gurdah, Pargana-Agori, Tehsil Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra, having area of 485 bighas and 15 biswas. It also appointed Shri Balwant Ram, Deputy Collector, Mirzapur, as authorised Settlement Officer under the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 4 (1) of the Act. 3. IT appears that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Public Interest Litigation filed by Banwasi Sewa Ashram, directed the appointment of five Additional District Judges to work in exercise of appellate power under Section 17 of the Forest Act and to decide the matter as to whether the area is excluded under Section 4 read with Section 20 of the Act. The judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court is in (1986) 4 SCC 753 and relevant direction thereof is as follows : "(2) In regard to the lands notified under Section 4 of the Act, even where no claim has been filed within the time specified in the notification as required under Section 6 (c) of the Act, such claims shall be allowed to be filed and dealt with in the manner detailed below : (I) Within six weeks from December, 1986, demarcating pillars shall be raised by the Forest Officers of the State Government identifying the lands covered by the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The fact that a notification has been made under Section 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 villages and surrounding areas concerned. Copies of notices 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 num-ber 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 January 15, 1987. Within three months therefrom claims as contemplated under Section 6 (c) shall be received as provided by the Statute. The Gram Sabhas shall give wide publicity to the matter at their level. Demarcation as indicated above, shall be completed by January 15, 1987. Within three months therefrom claims as contemplated under Section 6 (c) shall be received as provided by the Statute. (II) Adequate number of record officers shall be appointed by December 31, 1986. There shall also be five experienced Additional District Judges, one each to be located at Dudhi, Muirpur, Kirbil of Dudhi Tahsil and Robertsganj and Tilbudwa of Robertsganj Tehsil. Each of these Additional District Judges who will be spared by the High Court of Allahabad, would have his establishment at one of the places indicated and the State shall provide the requisite number of assistants and other employees for their efficient functioning. The learned Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court is requested to make the services of five experienced Additional District Judges available for the purpose by December 15, 1986, so that these officers may be posted at their respective stations by January 1, 1987. Each of these Additional District Judges would be entitled to 30 per cent of the salary as allowance during the period of their work. Each Additional District Judge would work at such of the five notified places that would be fixed by the District Judge of Mirzapur before December 20, 1986. These Additional District Judges would exercise powers of the Appellate Authority as provided under Section 17 of the Act. (III) After the Forest Settlement Officer had 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. (3) When the Appellate Authority finds that the claim is admissible the State Government shall (and it is agreed before us) honour the said decision and proceed to implement the same. (3) When the Appellate Authority finds that the claim is admissible the State Government shall (and it is agreed before us) honour the said decision and proceed to implement the same. Status quo in regard to possession in respect of lands covered by the notification under Section 4 shall continue as at present until the determination by the appellate authority and no notification under Section 20 of the Act shall be made in regard to these lands until such appellate decision has been made." 4. IT may be mentioned here that under Section 17 of the Act, appeal lies from order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer. In the State of U. P., appeal lies to the District Judge, which includes Additional District Judge. IT appears that pursuant to the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as mentioned above, objection was filed by one Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh, claiming bhumidhari right over an area of 26 bighas and 8 biswas in plot No. 246/1. The Forest Settlement Officer, vide order dated 20.6.1991, held that the possession of Mahendra Singh, Rajendra Singh over 26 bighas and 8 biswas of land is from before 1385 fasli and accordingly, agricultural operations were being done. IT is also far from forest but since it forms part of the river bed, therefore, bhumidhari rights cannot be given and their names be recorded as asami, category III. In respect of rest of the land, he held that it is not legally justified in proposing it to be reserved forest area. IT appears that the number of the plot was changed from 716 to 246. Mahendra Singh and the State of U. P. challenged the aforesaid order by filing appeal which was registered as Appeal No. 7330 of 1991 before the Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge vide order dated 27.2.1992 allowed the appeal filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh and declared them to be bhumidhars. The Divisional Forest Officer, filed a review application before the Additional District Judge, seeking review of the order dated 27.2.1992 which was rejected by the Additional District Judge, vide order dated 9.5.1994. IT appears that Mahendra Singh filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 9.5.1994 on which objection was filed by the Divisional Forest Officer. However, the Divisional Forest Officer also prayed for recall of the order dated 9.5.1994. IT appears that Mahendra Singh filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 9.5.1994 on which objection was filed by the Divisional Forest Officer. However, the Divisional Forest Officer also prayed for recall of the order dated 9.5.1994. The Additional District Judge, vide order dated 30.1.1999 recalled the order dated 9.5.1994 and restored the Review Application No. 2810 of 1992 to its original number. Thereafter, the review application has been allowed vide order dated 3.6.2002 and the objection of the Divisional Forest Officer has been upheld and the entire area have been held to be covered under the proposed declaration of reserved forest area under the notification dated 9.4.1969. It may be mentioned here that all the parties were permitted to file review under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.5.1991 and 4.10.1993. It appears that the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra executed lease deed on 2.3.2001 permitting the petitioner to excavate the sands from the plot No. 246/1 to the extent of area of 10 acres for a period of 3 years. However, after the review application filed by the Divisional Forest Officer has been allowed, the petitioner has been restrained from excavating sands. 5. I have heard Shri Y. K. Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinod Swarup, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri S. K. Garg, learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. 6. THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that five Additional District Judges were entrusted with the powers to decide the appeals arising out of the proceedings under the Forest Act and vide order dated 13.3.1994, Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted the remaining Additional District Judge to function only till 30.9.1994 by which date he shall conclude the hearing of all the appeals and review petitions. According to him, after 30.9.1994, the Additional District Judge had no power or jurisdiction to pass any order in the appeal or review, as he became functous officio. Thus, the order passed on the review application after 30.9.1994, i.e., the order dated 30.1.1999 and 3.6.2002 are without jurisdiction and non-est in the eyes of law. He further submitted that the review is a creature of statute and in the absence of any power of review, the Additional District Judge, who was acting, as Appellate Authority under Section 17 of the Act, could not review his order. He further submitted that the review is a creature of statute and in the absence of any power of review, the Additional District Judge, who was acting, as Appellate Authority under Section 17 of the Act, could not review his order. He further submitted that in any event second review petition was not maintainable and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. According to him, even on merits, there was no error apparent on record in the order dated 27.2.1992, which could have justified its review vide order dated 3.6.2002. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 715 ; Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and another v. K. Santhakumaran and others, (1998) 7 SCC 386 ; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, (2000) 7 SCC 296 and M. Satyanarayana Murthy and others v. Mandal Revenue, Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, (1998) 7 SCC 445 . He further submitted that the grant of mining lease for excavation of sands which is minor mineral is governed by the U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963 and if the State Government through the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, had granted mining lease to the petitioner on 12.3.2001 for consideration of Rs. 13,89,000 after following due procedure of law and observing all formalities, the respondents cannot restrain or put any hindrance on the petitioner's right to excavate sand pursuant to the mining lease. According to him, the petitioner has invested huge amount and, therefore, the respondents should be stopped from restraining the petitioner to excavate sand. 7. HE also submitted that the transfer petition was filed by Mandendra Singh before the District Judge which was registered as Misc. Case No. 41 of 2002 and vide order dated 9.5.2002 while fixing 4.5.2002 for hearing and disposal further proceedings and delivery of judgment and order in Misc. Review No. 2810 of 1992, Mahendra Singh v. Forest Department, was stayed in the meantime. According to him, the said order was filed before the Court of Additional District Judge and it was also extended subsequently, thus, in view of the stay order, passed by the learned District Judge, the Additional District Judge was not justified in delivering the judgment and order in review application on 3.6.2002 and thus the said order is liable to be set aside on this score alone. 8. SHRI Saxena further submitted that the land in question is adjoining the river Sone and sand is accumulated which if not excavated would cause hazardous environmental problem and in that event by no stretch of imagination it can be treated as forest land. Shri Vinod Swarup, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted that under the provisions of the Act an appeal under Section 17 lies before the District Judge including Additional District Judge of the district. The notification under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act was issued in the year 1969 and objections were entertained only pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banwasi Seva Ashram (supra). According to him, that even though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed for providing five experienced Additional District Judges to exercise powers of the Appellate Authority as provided under Section 17 of the Act, yet the State Government appointed one more Additional District Judge to deal with the appeals and the Courts of Additional District Judges, which were constituted under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court only were wound up and not the Court of Additional District Judge which was created by the State Government. Thus, he submitted that whatever appeals/review were pending after 30.9.1994 were decided by the existing Additional District Judge, and, therefore, the orders passed by the him, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. He further submitted that the petitioner has no right to challenge the order passed in the review application in as much as he was not a party to the said proceedings. He has only been granted mining lease for excavating the sand in the area, which has been granted/leased by the State Government prior to the order dated 3.6.2002, since it was not covered under the notification dated 9.4.1969. However, if the land in question has been held to be covered by the said Notification, the petitioner has no right to excavate sand in view of the prohibition contained in Section 5 of the Act. He, however, submitted that objection which was filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh related to an area of only 26 bighas and 8 biswas and no objection was filed in respect of the remaining area of land. He, however, submitted that objection which was filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh related to an area of only 26 bighas and 8 biswas and no objection was filed in respect of the remaining area of land. Thus, the Forest Settlement Officer was not justified in holding that remaining area of land of plot No. 246 cannot be decided to be reserved forest area under the Notification dated 9.4.1969 issued under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act. Thus, the order dated 27.2.1992 whereby the appeals of Mahendra Singh had been allowed, suffered from error apparent on record which has rightly been reviewed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 3.6.2002. 9. IT may be mentioned here that the entire order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer was up for scrutiny before the Additional District Judge pursuant to the order dated 20.11.1986 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Banwasi Seva Ashram (supra), by treating it as if an appeal has been taken against the order by the authority. 10. THE learned Additional Advocate General has further submitted that once the order dated 27.2.1992 has been recalled by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 3.1.1999, the review application filed by the Divisional Forest Officer was to be decided on merits and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge had not committed any error in reviewing the order dated 27.2.1992. It may be mentioned here, that the learned Additional District Judge had allowed the Divisional Forest Officer to amend the review application by various orders passed by him from time to time, which has not been challenged by the parties. 11. HE further submitted that in view of the prohibition contained in Section 5 of the Act once the notification under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act has been issued, no right could be acquired in the land covered by the Notification. Thus, the grant of mining lease will not give any right to the petitioner to excavate sand. 12. THE learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the land in question has been included in the proposal of declaring it to be reserved forest area hence no mining operation can be undertaken in the forest area without previous permission of the Central Government. 12. THE learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the land in question has been included in the proposal of declaring it to be reserved forest area hence no mining operation can be undertaken in the forest area without previous permission of the Central Government. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Yashwant Stone Works v. State, AIR 1988 All 121 , and decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Colorock Private Limited Vijayawada Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri K. Satyanarayana v. Director of Mines and Geology Government of A. P., Hyderabad and others, 1990 FLT 10 and submitted that even if in the revenue records, the land is not described as forest land, the nature of the land has to be taken into consideration while determining the question as to whether it is forest land or not. He also submitted that the extension of the stay order dated 9.5.2002, was not brought to the notice of the learned Additional District Judge, and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was justified in delivering the judgment and order. According to him, it is well-settled that the order of stay operates from the date when it is communicated and not from the date when it has been passed. He relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Raj and another v. State and others, AIR 1963 All 588 . 13. IN the present writ petition, the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, Mines Officer, Sonebhadra, State of U P. through Secretary, Industrial Development, Anubhag-II, Government of U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow have been impleaded as the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Notice of the writ petition has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, Government of U. P. The learned standing counsel, who represents the State respondents, did not submit any thing contrary to the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General. 14. HAVING heard the rival submissions, and gone through the record of the case, I find that the State Government had issued Notification under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act on 9.4.1969 declaring its intention to create reserved forest in respect of plot No. 246 (Old No. 716) situated in village Gurdah, Pargana Agori, Tehsil Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra. 14. HAVING heard the rival submissions, and gone through the record of the case, I find that the State Government had issued Notification under Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act on 9.4.1969 declaring its intention to create reserved forest in respect of plot No. 246 (Old No. 716) situated in village Gurdah, Pargana Agori, Tehsil Robertsganj, district Sonebhadra. Objection, if any, was filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh only in respect of 26 bighas 8 biswas of land of the aforesaid plot. The Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated 20.6.1991 held all the plots to have been illegally proposed for reserved Forest. The order dated 20.6.1991 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer was to be scrutinised by the Additional District Judge treating it to be appeal under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 20.11.1986 passed in the case of Banwasi Seva Ashram (supra). The learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 27.2.1992 held Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh to be bhumidhars of the land claimed by them. The rest of the order of the Forest Settlement Officer was upheld. He lost sight of the fact that the entire order of the Forest Settlement Officer was to be scrutinised and not only the claim of Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh. Pursuant to the orders dated 10.5.1991 and 4.10.1993 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court enabling the aggrieved parties to file review petition, the Divisional Forest Officer filed review petition which was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 9.5.1994. Since the order was ex parte, on the application filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh, the order dated 9.5.1994 was recalled by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 30.1.1999 and the review application filed by the Divisional Forest Officer has been restored and vide order dated 3.6.2002, the learned Additional District Judge had allowed the review application and held that the entire area of land of plot No. 246 has rightly been proposed for reserved forest area. 15. SINCE it is not in dispute that only objection which was filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh was confined to an area of 26 bighas 8 biswas in plot No. 246, the Forest Settlement Officer could not have held that the entire area of land cannot be included in the proposed reserved forest area. 15. SINCE it is not in dispute that only objection which was filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh was confined to an area of 26 bighas 8 biswas in plot No. 246, the Forest Settlement Officer could not have held that the entire area of land cannot be included in the proposed reserved forest area. The entire order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer was to be scrutinized by the learned Additional District Judge pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by limiting his decision only on the claim of Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh, the learned Additional District Judge had committed manifest error of law. The said error was liable to be rectified/corrected upon the application being made for review. The order dated 30.1.1999, whereby the learned Additional District Judge has set aside his earlier order dated 9.5.1994, rejecting the review application, has not been challenged. Thus, the application filed by the Divisional Forest Officer for review was to be decided on merits since the same has been filed pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.5.1991 and 4.10.1993. The orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge from time to time permitting the Divisional Forest Officer to amend review application has also not been challenged by any of the parties. Thus, the review application after its amendment was to be considered by the Additional District Judge and after consideration, the learned Additional District Judge had found that the entire area of the plot in question had rightly been proposed for reserved forest. Thus, no exception can be taken to it. 16. SO far as the question that after the order dated 18.7.1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein Additional District Judge was directed to conclude the hearing of all the appeals and review petition, the learned Additional District Judge became functus officio and ceased to have any jurisdiction to decide any application for review is concerned, it may be mentioned that one court of Additional District Judge, was created by the State Government vide order dated 1.4.1991 which continued to function even after the aforesaid order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the court of Additional District Judge which was created in addition to the court of five Additional District Judges created under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not cease to function. Moreover, under Section 17 of the Act an appeal lies against any order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, to the District Judge, which included the Additional District Judge. Thus, creation of one more court of Additional District Judge by the State Government was for the carrying out the purposes of Section 17 of the Act and was not to be affected by the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 18.7.1994. In the case of Parsion Devi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error, which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and correct". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". In the present case, as already held herein before, the objection was filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh only in respect of 26 bighas 8 biswas of the land in the plot in question and there was no objection for the remaining area. The Forest Settlement Officer had adjudicated upon the entire area of land comprised in the said plot which he could not have done as there was no claim filed by any person in respect of the remaining area. The entire order of the Forest Settlement Officer was to be scrutinised by the learned Additional District Judge, who only confined to the claim of Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh. The entire order of the Forest Settlement Officer was to be scrutinised by the learned Additional District Judge, who only confined to the claim of Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh. Thus, the order suffered from mistake, which was apparent on the face of the record and could have been reviewed in consonance with the principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi (supra). 17. IN the case of Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the review application filed by the respondent before the High Court after delay of 221 days after the S.L.P. was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after hearing the parties, amounted to abuse of the process of the Court. No such situation is existing in the present case and further the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge allowing the application filed by Mahendra Singh and Rajendra Singh and setting aside the order dated 30.5.1994 had not been challenged by any of the parties. 18. IN the case of Delhi Administrations (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "It has become almost an everyday experience that review applications are filed mechanically as a matter of routine and the grounds for review are a mere reproduction of the grounds of special leave and there is no indication as to which ground strictly falls within the narrow limits of Rule XL of the Supreme Court Rules. This practice is seriously deprecated. If parties file review petitions indiscriminately, the time of the Court is unnecessarily wasted, even it be in chambers where the review petitions are listed. Greater care, seriousness and restraint are needed in filing review applications." In the present case, the review application was filed pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and order granting permission to amend the review application has not been challenged by any of the parties, thus, the Additional District Judge was justified in deciding the review application. 19. IN the case of M. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that recourse to second review petition against same order is not permissible and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. IN the present case no second review petition has been filed, thus this case has no application. 20. 19. IN the case of M. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that recourse to second review petition against same order is not permissible and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. IN the present case no second review petition has been filed, thus this case has no application. 20. IN the case of M/s. Yashwant Stone Works (supra), this Court has observed as follows : "Reverting to the argument of the petitioner's counsel that as no notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act, 1927, declaring the forest in question as "reserved forest" had been issued, therefore, prior approval of the Central Government was required, we find ourselves unable to agree. Under Section 2 of the 1980 Act, there are two prohibitions. The first is that the State Government would not be empowered to declare a reserved forest as ceasing to be so, and the second is that any forest land or any portion thereof cannot be used for non-forest purpose. The words important in Clause (ii) of Section 2 are : "any forest lands". The word "forest" has not been defined in the Act. This word has been used in the general sense which means all the lands bearing vegetative associations demarcated by trees of any size exploited or not, capable of producing wood or other forest products or exerting an influence on the climate or on the water regime or providing shelter for livestock and wildlife." This definition has been given by Food and Agriculture Organisation (F.A.O.) of the United Nations." (Emphasis supplied) The Division Bench again observed a little later as follows : "It (Act) applies to "any forest land" which is to be used for non-forest purpose. "Any" is a word of very wide meaning and prima facie the use of this word excludes limitation or qualification. If the word "any" is also kept into account, there would be no difficulty in finding that the term "forest" has not to be confined to "reserved forest" only. Section 2 imposing restriction on the use of forest lands for non-forest purposes will apply to all the forest." (Emphasis supplied). If the word "any" is also kept into account, there would be no difficulty in finding that the term "forest" has not to be confined to "reserved forest" only. Section 2 imposing restriction on the use of forest lands for non-forest purposes will apply to all the forest." (Emphasis supplied). Thus, even in the case where the Notification under Section 20 of the Act has not been issued, the land may still be considered to be a forest land and it cannot be used for non-forest purpose except with the permission of the Central Government. The land in question has already been proposed to be declared in the reserved forest area taking into consideration the nature of land, thus, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not forest land cannot be accepted. 21. SO far as the question that the learned District Judge had stayed further proceedings/delivery of orders in the review application pending before the Additional District Judge, vide order dated 9.5.2002 while fixing 24.5.2002 is concerned, it may be mentioned that the order dated 9.5.2002 was understood to be operative till 24.5.2002 and thereafter, if the order extending the interim stay order was not brought to the notice of the learned Additional District Judge who proceeded to decide the review application on 3.6.2002, there is no illegality in deciding the case by the Additional District Judge or delivery of the orders on 3.6.2002. 22. IN the case of Ram Raj (supra), this Court has held as follows : "A stay order passed by the higher Court does not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction already possessed by the subordinate court over the case pending before it. Any proceedings taken in the subordinate court in ignorance of the stay order cannot, therefore, be said to be null and void." In the case of Ram Charan Das v. Brij Mohan Lal, 1976 (2) ALR 116, this Court has held that an order of stay becomes effective from the time it is communicated to the parties concerned. 23. IN the case of Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that till the order of stay comes to the knowledge of the Court, it has jurisdiction to carry on as not affected by the said order. 23. IN the case of Mulraj v. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, AIR 1967 SC 1386 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that till the order of stay comes to the knowledge of the Court, it has jurisdiction to carry on as not affected by the said order. The only effect of the stay order is to prohibit the Court from proceeding further and that can only be stopped when the Court has knowledge of the order. 24. IN the present case, it has not been brought on record as to whether the order passed by the learned District Judge on 24.5.2002, extending the stay order was brought to the notice of the learned Additional District Judge or not? Thus, if the learned Additional District Judge has proceeded to decide the matter, in that event, he has not committed any illegality. The plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner had invested a huge sum of money in getting the mining lease and mining lease has yet not been cancelled and during the period of its subsistence, the authorities cannot restrain or put any hindrance is concerned, suffice it to mention that the lease was granted when the order was passed by the authority holding the land in question to have not been lawfully declared in the proposed forest reserved area but when vide order dated 3.6.2002, the learned Additional District Judge has held that the land in question has been lawfully and rightly declared in the proposed reserved forest area, the mining lease could not have been granted. The effect of the order, dated 3.6.2002, would be that the land in question had been lawfully declared in the proposed reserved forest area and thus, no right accrues to the petitioner. The petitioner can claim refund of the money, which he had paid in accordance with law. 25. NO other point has been raised. 26. IN view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed.