JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Agricultural land in dispute situate in Village Billi Markundi District Sonbhadra was included in the notification issued by the State Government of U.P. under Section 4 of Forest Act, 1927. Relevant portions of Sections 4 (without explanation) and 5 of the Act are reproduced below: “4. Notification by State Government.—(1) Whenever it has been decided to constitute any land, a reserved forest, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette- (a) declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a reserved forest; (b) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of such land; and (c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called “the Forest Settlement Officer”) to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits, or in or over any forest-produce, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter. 5. Bar of accrual of forest-rights.—After the issue of a notification under section 4, no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.” 3. Thereafter, it is provided under Section 6 of the Act that after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, every person claiming any right mentioned in Section 4 or Section 5 in the land included in the notification under Section 4 shall file objection before Forest Settlement Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘F.S.O.’). Thereafter in Sections 11(1) and (2), it is provided as under: “11. Power to acquire land over which right is claimed.—(1) In the case of a claim to a right in or over any land, other than a right-of-way or right of pasture, or a right to forest-produce or a water-course, the Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part. Power to acquire land over which right is claimed.—(1) In the case of a claim to a right in or over any land, other than a right-of-way or right of pasture, or a right to forest-produce or a water-course, the Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part. (2) If such claim is admitted in whole or in part, the Forest Settlement officer shall either - (i) exclude such land from the limits of the proposed forest; or (ii) come to an agreement with the owner thereof for the surrender of his rights; (iii) proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. (3) Not relevant.” 4. A conjoint analysis of the above sections makes it clear that what the F.S.O. is required to decide is right of individual(s) against the State (or Gaon Sabha in U.P. where under U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, the land which vests in State can be vested by it in the Gaon Sabha). Inter-se dispute between different private claimants is not required or permitted to be decided under the aforesaid sections or any other provision of the Act. For decision of inter-se disputes between private individuals in respect of agricultural land a complete machinery is provided under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and other allied Acts like U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and U.P. Land Revenue Act. There is nothing in the Forest Act to indicate that the intention of the legislature is that private disputes in respect of land covered by notification under Section 4 of the Act shall be decided by F.S.O. to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Courts/ authorities constituted for such purpose (like revenue/ consolidation Courts in U.P.). Once it is held that some private person or persons have got right to the land included in the notification under Section 4 of the act, it is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of the Act to decide inter-se disputes. If under Section 11, it is decided to exclude the land over which some individual(s) or some of the individual claimants have got a right then for the purposes of the Forest Act it is wholly irrelevant as to which of the claimants has actually got the right. If under Section 11, it is decided to exclude the land over which some individual(s) or some of the individual claimants have got a right then for the purposes of the Forest Act it is wholly irrelevant as to which of the claimants has actually got the right. If the land is to be acquired, then also rival claims for compensation are to be decided under Land Acquisition Act (Section 30). The only difficulty may arise if an agreement is entered into with the owner for the surrender of his rights [Section 11(2)(ii)]. If all the rival claimants agree for surrender of the right, then the question of apportionment of compensation for the surrender may be left to be decided by revenue, consolidation or civil Courts. However if any of the rival claimants does not agree then agreement for the surrender is not to be attempted. 5. In the instant case, F.S.O. under Section 6/9 of the Forest Act and the appellate authority have decided inter-se dispute of original petitioner and original respondent No. 7, Badan. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 7 have died and have been substituted by their legal representatives. 6. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 31.1.1996 passed by A.D.J. Obara, Sonbhadra in Misc. Appeals No. 11 to 15, all of 1995 (Annexure-VIII to the writ petition). Through the said judgment, appeals were allowed. The appeals were directed against order dated 30.1.1995 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, Obara, Sonbhadra under Section 6/9 of Forest Act in Cases No. 667, 720, 731, 78 and 80, all of 1993, Ghurahu and others v. Forest Department. The dispute was as to whether the land in dispute was entered in the revenue record in the name of Ghurahu (original plaintiff) as representative of the family or in his individual capacity. The F.S.O. held that the land in dispute had been acquired by Ghurahu and Vishwanath and that Badan original respondent No. 7 in the writ petition had no right therein. Appellate Court held that Badan was co-tenure holder/ bhumindhar alongwith Ghurahu and a declaration to that effect was granted by the appellate Court. 7. The F.S.O. held that the land in dispute had been acquired by Ghurahu and Vishwanath and that Badan original respondent No. 7 in the writ petition had no right therein. Appellate Court held that Badan was co-tenure holder/ bhumindhar alongwith Ghurahu and a declaration to that effect was granted by the appellate Court. 7. In view of the above both the impugned orders are set aside and it is directed that any of the parties are at liberty to approach the competent Court under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act or U.P. C.H. Act for seeking declaration of their right or such other relief which they may desire and which may be permissible to be claimed under law. If such a suit/ litigation is instituted, it shall be decided by competent Court/ authority without taking into consideration at all either the order of the F.S.O. (Annexure-VII to the writ petition) or of the appellate Court (Annexure-VIII to the writ petition). 8. Writ petition is accordingly allowed as above. However, this judgment shall not confer any right upon any of the parties for claiming the land merely on the basis of this judgment as through this judgment, the only thing which has been decided is that inter-se dispute between original petitioner and original respondent No. 7 (including their legal representatives) could not be decided by the authorities/ Courts below under Forest Act. —————