JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr.N.K. Pandey and Mr. P.K. Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioners and Mr.Alok Sinha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 3.10.1994, passed by the Assistant Sub-Divisional Officer/Forest Settlement Officer as well as the orders passed in appeals upholding the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer. 3. By means of order dated 3.10.1994, Forest Settlement Officer cancelled the petitioners’ names from the revenue record of Gata No. 1886 and issued direction to record the Forest Department over there, on the ground that the land in dispute has been settled with the Forest Department since 1952 and on 31st August, 1959. The Forest Department took over the the possession of the land in dispute, thus it did not remain with the possession of the Land Management Committee, on account of which the Land Management Committee was not empowered to lease out the land in favour of the petitioners in 1963. 4. So far as the lease holders are concerned, they had been residing far away since about 15 years ago, thus they were not entitled to get executed the lease in their favour. It is also the finding of the Forest Settlement Officer that after abolition of Jamindari, the petitioners’ who were recorded as Sirdars, did not deposit the land revenue to get declared them as tenure holders, therefore, they are not entitled to retain the possession and title over there. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the jurisdiction of the Forest Settlement Officer to take a decision as once the lease executed in their favour by the Land Management Committee is in accordance with law, it is only the Collector who is empowered to cancel the same. They also challenged the finding of the Forest Settlement Officer in regard to possession and submitted that the petitioners have been in possession over the land in dispute through out after getting executed lease in their favour. It is further submitted that after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act the Notifications under Section 6 and 20 of the Act, are yet to be issued. Thus it is stated that the proceeding of acquisition has yet to be completed. 6. It is further submitted that after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act the Notifications under Section 6 and 20 of the Act, are yet to be issued. Thus it is stated that the proceeding of acquisition has yet to be completed. 6. The Gaon Sabha Barauli Khalilabad, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil and District Lucknow, executed lease, measuring 7 ½ bighas in favour of Dharmjeet Rai, who had been petitioners father and the land of the same area in favour of Champa Devi, petitioners’ mother. By means of order dated 14th of December, 1964, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the land was mutated in their favour. After their death the petitioner of writ petition No. 1205 (MS) of 2006 and his brother Yogendra Rai, the petitioner in writ petition No. 1554 (MS) of 2006, were recorded as tenure holders. Thus, since 1963 i.e. from execution of lease-deed the petitioners’ parents and thereafter the petitioners had been in possession and cultivating the land. On 5th of September, 1968, the Forest Settlement Officer declared the area of the land as a reserve forest by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioners’ parents filed their objection before the Forest Settlement Officer against the said declaration. The Forest Settlement Officer allowed the objection by means of order dated 7th of March, 1970, on the ground that unless lease is cancelled, the names of lease holders could not be deleted from the revenue record. The order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer based on the report of Naib Tehsildar, who acknowledged the lease as well as entries made in favour of the petitioners in the revenue record as genuine. 7. In the similar circumstances seven other persons also filed objections, which were allowed. However, the Forest Settlement Officer filed appeals before the District Judge, which were rejected, except the petitioners’ appeal, which was remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide afresh. The Forest Settlement Officer decided the petitioners’ objection in the same manner and rejected the petitioners objection. Then again petitioners preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed by means of order dated 6th of October, 1998. The petitioners sought review of the said order also, which too was rejected by means of order dated 28th of January, 2006, therefore, the present writ petitions are before me for decision. 8. Then again petitioners preferred an appeal, which too was dismissed by means of order dated 6th of October, 1998. The petitioners sought review of the said order also, which too was rejected by means of order dated 28th of January, 2006, therefore, the present writ petitions are before me for decision. 8. Through the counter-affidavit the respondents have submitted that on 31st of August, 1959, 18 plots of village Barauli Khalilabad, Pargana Bijnore, Tehsil and district Lucknow were handed over to the Forest Department by the State Government. The total area of plots was 296 bighas, 12 biswa and 18 biswansi. After abolition of Zamindari the property right over the land was vested with the State Government. The possession of the area was also handed over to the Forest Department on 31st of August, 1959. The petitioners claim their right over the land in dispute claiming themselves as Bhumidhar of the land, on the basis of lease-deed executed in favour of their parents in 1963, whereas the land had already been handed over to the Forest Department in 1959. The petitioners, who were Sirdars had no propriety right over the land in dispute. On 5th of September, 1968, the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Indian Forest Act was issued declaring the area in dispute as reserve forest. It is further stated that so far as the jurisdiction of the Forest Settlement Officer is concerned, he is vested with the power of Civil Court as for the trial of suit under Article III(1) (14)(b) of U.P. Forest Manual, in which, it has, specifically, been provided that the Forest Settlement Officer will record the evidence and decide the claim in each case in the manner prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code. Since the possession of the land was handed over to the Forest Department on 31.8.1959, the Gaon Sabha has no right to execute the lease. Thus, the lease executed in favour of the petitioners was absolutely illegal. The respondents also disputed the genuineness of the lease holders to get executed lease in their favour. 9. Through the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, one notification dated 11th of October, 1952, issued by the State Government in exercise of power provided under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been brought on record. 9. Through the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, one notification dated 11th of October, 1952, issued by the State Government in exercise of power provided under Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been brought on record. Through the notification the Government has declared that all land, whether cultivable or otherwise except the land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove and all forests within the village boundaries, situate in a circle, which has vested in the State under the said Act, shall, subject to exception shown in schedules land Ist and 2nd hereto, vest in Gaon Samaj established for the circle. It is further stated that the land in dispute is included in the land of village Barauli Khalilabad at Sl.No. 14 of Pargana Bijnore of district and Tehsil Lucknow. The total area of the land is 155 acres, which, under the exceptional clause of notification, shall not vest in the Gaon Samaj. 10. After demarcation of the aforesaid total land, the land of Khasra Plot No. 1886, measuring 34 bihas, 2 biswa and 15 biswansi, alongwith the land of 17 other plots was handed over to the Forest Department through the charge note signed by the Forester and the Lekhpal concerned on 31st of August, 1959. 11. On 9th of March, 1968, a notification No. 23 was issued under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act containing total area of 155 acres of different khasra plot numbers of the village Barauli Khalilabad. Thus the area in dispute has been declared as reserve forest. 12. The effect of issuance of notification under Section 4 has been described in Section 5 of the Act in the following manner : “5. Thus the area in dispute has been declared as reserve forest. 12. The effect of issuance of notification under Section 4 has been described in Section 5 of the Act in the following manner : “5. Bar of accrual of forest-rights.—After the issue of the 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, nor any tree therein felled, girdled, lopped, trapped or burnt, or its bark or leaves removed therefrom, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf." 13. Accordingly it is stated that after issuance of the said notification the Gaon Sabha had no right to execute the lease-deed. 14. Section 195 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 empowers the Land Management Committee to admit any person as Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights to any land other than land falling in any of the classes mentioned in Section 132 where- (a) the land is vacant land, (b) the land is vested in the Gaon Sabha under Section 117 or (c) the land has come into the possession of Land Management Committee under Section 194 or under any other provisions of this Act. 15. Since the land in dispute was excluded from notification issued under Section 117, the Land Management Committee had no right to admit the petitioners as lease holders. So far as the genuineness of lease is concerned, the lease holders had not been residing in the village concerned. There was no approval of lease by the Assistant Collector as required under the Act. Since the lease was not lease in the eye of law, there was no need to adopt any proceeding for cancellation of lease under the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act. The name of Forest Department is recorded in Khataunis dated 10.8.1997 and 20.4.2007, which are the conclusive proof in regard to possession of the Forest Department over the land in dispute. 16. Mr. Since the lease was not lease in the eye of law, there was no need to adopt any proceeding for cancellation of lease under the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act. The name of Forest Department is recorded in Khataunis dated 10.8.1997 and 20.4.2007, which are the conclusive proof in regard to possession of the Forest Department over the land in dispute. 16. Mr. Alok Sinha, learned Standing Counsel in support of his aforesaid submissions also relied upon some decisions, which are as under : (1) The State of U.P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1996 SC 2432 . 17. In this case the appellant raised objection before the Consolidation authorities that they had acquired sirdari rights in the land on the basis of their long possession, as such in terms of Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, it should not have been notified as reserve forest. They also pleaded that the land in dispute as such vested with the State by means of notification dated 11th of October, 1952 issued under the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act. The consolidation officer allowed the claim of the respondents and came to the conclusion that the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Act did not affect the rights of the respondents in the land in dispute. The orders passed by the Consolidation Officer was upheld by the Settlement Officer Consolidation as well as by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in appeal and revision respectively. The State filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of revision. The High Court too dismissed the writ petition. The High Court declared the proceeding as void, that being so the authorities were bound to hold that the title of the objectors was not extinguished thereby. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court failed into patent error in appreciating the provisions of Indian Forest Act as well as the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person, who was holding the land as sirdar was not vested with the propriety right under the abolition Act. He was a tenure holder and the propriety right vested with the State. The State being the proprietor of the land under the abolition Act, it was justified in issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act. He was a tenure holder and the propriety right vested with the State. The State being the proprietor of the land under the abolition Act, it was justified in issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The nature of the land, whether covered by Section 3 of the Act or not could only be determined on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. (2) Jogender Singh and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and others, 2002 (1) AWC 141 (Allahabad High Court). 18. This Court relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once under Indian Forest Act, 1927 power is given to declare the forest land as the reserve forest irrespective of its ownership even if forest land is included in a tenure holders tenure, there is no prohibition in any law from declaring the said land as forest land. 19. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed, here-in-above, I do not find error in the orders impugned. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed. ———————