Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22-10-2003, passed in suit No. 212 of 2003, by Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court II, Dehradun, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff-Dokham Tibbattan Foundation, is decreed against the defendants. (In the appeal Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Dehradun, has unnecessarily been impleaded as respondent in the appeal). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff (respondent No.1) instituted the aforementioned suit with the pleading that Dokham Tibbattan Foundation is a registered society having its registration No. 11/49/1968 and Shri Ogain Dorjee is its General Secretary, who is authorized to institute the suit on behalf of the society. It is pleaded that the object of the society is to rehabilitate the Tibbetan refugees and to make them self reliant. Plaintiff's case. is that under Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (U.P.Act No.10 of 1953), the plaintiff society was given 32 acres of land of plot No. 742/1 in Village Tauli, Pargana Pachwa Doon, Tehsil Dehradun. Agrant was executed on behalf of the Government of U.P. and possession was handed over to the plaintiff society. However, later on, it was realized that the land iri question is a dense forest land and it may not be possible to rehabilitate the refugees in said land as it requires felling of large number of trees. On this, Forest Department of the State Government suggested that the land can be exchanged by transferring it to the department in exchange of some other suitable land. Accordingly, ownership and possession of the land was transferred to the Forest Department and in a case registered as 7/70-71, filed by the plaintiff, vide order dated 27-04-1971, order of exchange of land was passed, whereby in exchange of 32 acres of land of plot No.7 42/1,32 acres of land (26.85 acres of land of plot No. 2353 and 5.15 acres of land of plot No. 2367) was given to the plaintiff society in Village Arkedea. The name of the plaintiff society from the land in Tauli was struck off and that of the Forest Department was entered, and in the land of Arkedea, name of plaintiff/society was entered along with another organization known as Tibbetan Nehru Memorial Foundation. The name of the plaintiff society from the land in Tauli was struck off and that of the Forest Department was entered, and in the land of Arkedea, name of plaintiff/society was entered along with another organization known as Tibbetan Nehru Memorial Foundation. It is alleged by the plaintiff (respondent No.1) in the plaint that thereafter the officers of the defendant (State) with malafide intention tried to deprive the plaintiff of the land given in exchange. Defend::mt No.1, the Forest Department of the State instituted a suit under Section 166 of U.P. Zamindari Abolution and Land Reforms Act, which was registered as case No. 62/84-85 against the plaintiff society. Meanwhile, plaintiff society also got registered a case No. 7/84-85 under Section 39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dehradun, where both the cases were tried, allowed the case of the Forest Department. Separate revisions were filed by the plaintiff society before the Commissioner, Garhwal Mandai, which were registered as revision No. 6/85-86 and revision No 7/ 85-86. Both the revisions were decided by Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, vide his order dated 13-02-1987, dismissing the same (revisions). On this, plaintiff society challenged the order dated 13-02-1987, before the Board of Revenue, Allahabad, where the revision was registered as No. 15/86-87. Board of Revenue allowed the revision of the plaintiff society in compliance thereof and again name of plaintiff society was entered in the revenue records on 06-01-1989. A writ petition (Old No. 2540 of 1989) was filed on 08-12-1988, on behalf of the State, before Allahabad High Court, which was also dismissed. It is alleged in the plaint that defendants are permitting anti social elements to take possession of the land in suit. Hence the suit for injunction was instituted by present respondent No.1, in the civil court. 4. Defendant (appellant) contested the suit and filed their written statement wherein it is admitted that in Village Tauli, 32 acres of land of plot No. 742/1 was granted to plaintiff society by Bhoodan samiti and vide order 12-02-1970, and the name of the plaintiff society was entered in the revenue record. However, it is pleaded by the defendants that vide notification NO.1 0250/ 4-B-20-278/70. dated 08-01-1971. said land of Villaqe Tauli was declared reserved forest. Vide its decision dated 27-04-1971. the Forest Settlement Officer. Dehradun. sent a proposal to exchange 32 acres of land of plot No. 742/1. However, it is pleaded by the defendants that vide notification NO.1 0250/ 4-B-20-278/70. dated 08-01-1971. said land of Villaqe Tauli was declared reserved forest. Vide its decision dated 27-04-1971. the Forest Settlement Officer. Dehradun. sent a proposal to exchange 32 acres of land of plot No. 742/1. given by Bhudan Samiti to plaintiff society with other land in Village Arkedea to be given to the society. However. the Government vie its order dated 26-12-1974. informed that under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act. 1927. all the rights of the persons holding the land come to an end over the land declared a reserved forest. Therefore. it is not admitted by the defendants that the Forest Settlement Officer had any right to allot land of plot No. 2353 and 2362 in village Arkedea. Dehradun. Entries made by the revenue authorities in favour of the plaintiff in pursuance to the proceedings launched before such authorities by the plaintiff are illegal and does not confer any right to the plaintiff over the land in dispute (Le. 32 acres of plot No. 2353 and 2362 in village Arkedea). Lastly. it is pleaded by the defendants in their written statement that under the garb of transfer of State land the plaintiff society is encroaching upon the adioining said land illegally and as• such the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court :1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the land in suit? 2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 3. Whether the suit is barred by Section 5 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 ? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 6. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, gave finding that land in suit is owned and possessed by the plaintiff society. It further found that the suit is cognizable by the civil court and lastly, it held that without due process of law, the possession of the plaintiff cannot be disturbed by the defendants. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit for permanent injunction vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22-10-2003. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, this appeal is filed by the defendants. 7. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit for permanent injunction vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22-10-2003. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, this appeal is filed by the defendants. 7. During the pendency of this appeal, an application (No. 2931 of 2007), for amendment in the written statement, was moved on behalf of the appellants (defendants), raising the plea that grant of land in favour of the plaintiff under Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 is illegal and non est and as such there could not have been any exchange of land granted to plaintiff in Tauli with the land in suit situated in Village Arkedea. The objections were filed on behalf of the plaintiff (respondent No.1) against said amendment application. After hearing the parties, vide order dated 11-10-2007, the amendment sought was rejected with the observation that in view of provision of Order XLI Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants/ appellants without amendment in the written statement are allowed to argue the legality of the grant of land, pleaded by the plaintiff under Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 and to show whether such grant is grant in the eves of law of not. 8. Learned Advocate General with the leave of the Court, on behalf of the appellants, raised the objection and argued that the grant, said to have been made in favour of the plaintiff, as pleaded by him under Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 is not only illegal but also non est in the eyes of law. He further argued that once it is found that the land could not have been granted under the aforesaid Act to the plaintiff the case of the plaintiff is that he is owner of the land in dispute, as he got said land in exchange of land granted by Bhoodan Samiti, automatically fails. On behalf of the appellants attention of this Court is drawn to the case of Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti Vs. Braj Kishore and others (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 274 and it is contended that the petitioner was not a landless person (landless agricultural labourer) and the land under Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act. 1952, could not have been granted to such a person. 9. Braj Kishore and others (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 274 and it is contended that the petitioner was not a landless person (landless agricultural labourer) and the land under Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act. 1952, could not have been granted to such a person. 9. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 14 of U.P. Bhoodan Yagya Act, 1952, which reads as under :"14. Grant of land to landless persons- (1) The Committee or such other authority or person as the Committee with the approval of the State Government, specify either generally or in respect of any area, may, in the manner prescribed, grant lands which have vested in it to the landless agricultural laboures and the grantee of the land shall- (i) ................................................ (N) ................................................ 2. ................................................ Explanation- For the purposes of this section, the expression "landless agricultural labourer" means a person whose main source of livelihood is agricultural labour or cultivation and who at the relevant time either holds no land or holds lands not exceeding one acre in Uttar Pradesh as a bhumidhar, asami or Government lessee." It is pertinent to mention here that before expression 'landless labourer' was substituted in the aforesaid Section by Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment)Act, 1975, expression used to be was "landless persons". In the case of U. P. Bhoodan Yagna Samiti Vs. Bra; Kishore (Supra), the Apex Court has interpreted that 'landless persons' in the aforesaid Section refers to landless'aqricultural labourers. Supreme Court while interpreting the two expressions has referred to the objects and reasons of Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 and the philosophy of AcharyaVinoba Bhave, which was the basis of making donation of land by the land holders for giving to the landless persons. Undoubtedly, in the present case, the grant is made in the year 1970 i.e. prior to 1975. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that Tibatten refugees were neither citizens of India nor there was any intention on the part of legislature to provide land to them under the Act. He also referred to document, copy of Articles of Association of plaintiff society (Dokham Tibbat Foundation) in an attempt to show that most of the members of the society are businessmen. Copy of said document is on the record of the lower court. He also referred to document, copy of Articles of Association of plaintiff society (Dokham Tibbat Foundation) in an attempt to show that most of the members of the society are businessmen. Copy of said document is on the record of the lower court. From the scheme of the aforesaid Act it does not appear to be object of the law to give land to the societies. Apart from this, copy of certificate of grant, which finds place in the lower court record, shows that the land was allotted to the plaintiff society to rehabilitate the Tibbatan refugees. Again, it is not the object and scheme of Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952, therefore, we are of the opinion that in view of principle of law laid down in Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Varma Samiti Vs. Bra; Kishore and others (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases Pa. 274. the entire proceedings of grant of land of Villaqe Tauli to the plaintiff society is void and non est. Once it is found that the land of plot NO.7 42/1 of Village Tauli does not stand transferred to the plaintiff under the aforesaid Act. there is no question of exchange of land in lieu thereof after said land is declared reserved forest. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted before this Court that in the case of Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti Vs. Braj Kishore (Supra), the Government has not approved the grant, as such, the facts of this case are different and the analogy of the referred case cannot be applied to this case. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent for the reason that the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, has dearly interpreted to whom the land donated by the people under the aforesaid Act could have been given to. 12. Shri B.C. Pande, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff / respondent argued that plaintiffs name is already recorded in the revenue record and the mutation proceedings have attained finality after the plaintiffs revision was allowed by the Board of Revenue and the said writ petition is dismissed by this Court. As such, it is not open for the defendant/appellant to challenge the title of the plaintiff. As such, it is not open for the defendant/appellant to challenge the title of the plaintiff. Having gone through the record relating to the mutation proceedings which is said to have attained finality vide judgment and order dated 11-05-2005, passed in writ petition No. 5774 (M/S) of2001 (Old No. 2540 of 1989), by learned Single Judge of this Court, we are of the view that since it is settled principle of law that mutation proceedings being summary in nature, does not decide finally title of the parties and it was open for the defendant/appellant to show in these proceedings that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the land in suit. In Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh A/R 1997, Supreme Court 2719 and Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases Pg. 223, it has been held by the Apex Court that mutation entries do not conveyor extinguish any title, and as such entries are relevant only for the purposes of collection of land revenue. 13. It is also contended on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent that if the Forest Settlement Officer determined the rights of the plaintiff in respect of land in suit, which was allowed to be occupied by the plaintiff in Village Arkedea in lieu of the land declared forest in village Tauli, the plea raised by the defendant that plaintiff is not owner of the land in question is barred by principle of resjudicata. In reply to this, learned Advocate General argued that under Section 11 of Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest Settlement Officer had no power to provide land only in exchange of the land. We have examined the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and we agree with the submission of the learned Advocate General that Forest Settlement Officer has no power to allot land only in lieu of the land surrendered. The proceedings under Section 161 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (UP. Act NO.1 of 1951), does not empower the Forest Settlement Officer, to exercise the same. And as far as the provisions of Section 166 of said Act (U.P. Act No.1 of 1951) is concerned, the power to declare transfer void under said Act is applicable to the transfers made under said Act alone. Act NO.1 of 1951), does not empower the Forest Settlement Officer, to exercise the same. And as far as the provisions of Section 166 of said Act (U.P. Act No.1 of 1951) is concerned, the power to declare transfer void under said Act is applicable to the transfers made under said Act alone. And as such even if the defendant/appellant had lost their case before the revenue authorities it does not affect their rights as the transfers involved in respect of the land in suit and the land situated in Tauli were not under the U.P. Act No.1 of 1951. 14. Lastly, we are of the opinion that in the present case the plaintiff is otherwise also not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction as against the State in view of the fact that he permitted contractor to do the construction activities on the agricultural land, as reported by Amin of the court in his report dated 09-05-2003 (which is part of the record of the suit). In said report, it is mentioned that one bulldozer was being plied at the spot at the time when the Amin inspected the same. 15. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find that the trial court has committed error of law in holding the plaintiff owner of the land, and by granting injunction as against the State, the true owner of the land. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 22-10-2003, passed by the trial court is set aside and original suit No. 212 of 2003, is dismissed. No order as to costs.