JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Mishra, learned standing counsel for the petitioner State of U.P. and Sri W.H. Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The dispute in this writ petition is regarding plot No. 1058-M, area 80 bighas and plot No. 1093, area 21 bighas situate in Tehsil Rabertsganj District Sonebhadra (previously District Mirzapur) i.e. as to whether land was rightly declared as reserved forest or respondents are its bhoomidhars. The proceedings were initiated pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment in Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1987 SC 374 : 1986 (4) SCC 753 , in respect of lands situate within Dudhi and Robertsganj Tehsils in the District of Mirzapur. Para-1 of the said judgment is quoted below: “1. On the basis of a letter received from Banwasi Seva Ashram operating in the Mirzapur District this writ petition under Article 32 was registered. Grievance was made on several scores in that letter but ultimately the question that required detailed consideration was relating to the claim of the Adivasis living within Dudhi and Robertsganj Tehsils in the District of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh to land and related rights. The State Government declared a part of these jungle lands in the two Tehsils as reserved forest as provided under Section 20, Forest Act, 1927, and in regard to the other areas notification under Section 4 of the Act was made and proceedings for final declaration of those areas also as reserved forests were undertaken. It is common knowledge that the Adivasis and other backward people living within the jungle used the forest area as their habitat. They had raised several villages within these two Tehsils and for generations had been using the jungles around for collecting the requirements for their livelihood, fruits, vegetables, fodder, flowers, timber, animals by way of sports and fuel wood. When a part of the jungle became reserved forest and in regard to other proceedings under the Act were taken, the forest officers started interfering with their operations in those areas. Criminal cases for encroachments as also other forest offences were registered and systematic attempt was made to obstruct them from free movement. Even steps for throwing them out under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. were taken.” 3. Criminal cases for encroachments as also other forest offences were registered and systematic attempt was made to obstruct them from free movement. Even steps for throwing them out under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. were taken.” 3. Pursuant to the said order, the four respondents filed objections before Forest Settlement Officer, Chopan, Mirzapur in 1988. Copy of the objections is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. At the end of the application, old number of the plot was mentioned as 276, new numbers of the said plots were mentioned as Plot No. 1093-M (part), area 21 bighas and Plot No. 1058-M, area 80 bighas. Forest Settlement Officer where case was registered as Case No. 581, Hari Prakash Shukla and others v. Forest Department, decided the matter in favour of the respondents. Copy of the judgment is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is undated and learned counsel for respondents admits that the original order does not bear any date. Through the said order, both the plots claimed by the respondents were deleted from the proposal of making them reserved forest and they were declared to be tenure holders. Against the said order, State of U.P. Forest Department filed Appeal No. 1961 of 1990, State of U.P. through Forest Department v. Hari Prakash Shukla and others. A.D.J., Chopan, Sonebhadra dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 4.4.1991. 4. The Supreme Court clarifying its earlier judgment of Adiwasi Sewa Ashram passed another order on 10.5.1991 observing at the end of the judgment as follows: “It appears that there had been taking some instances where decisions have been taken but they required to be reviewed. Both on the side of the Government as also by the parties, counsel for the parties agree that review can be filed within 30 days from today and if so filed the plea of limitation shall not avail.” 5. The State accordingly filed review petition before the A.D.J. seeking review of judgment and order dated 4.4.1991. Thereafter, State sought transfer of the matter. Accordingly, review petition was transferred from the Court of A.D.J., Chopan to the Court of A.D.J., Anpara through order dated 20.10.1991. Against the said transfer order, Writ Petition No. 33315 of 1991 was filed. Writ Petition was disposed of on 9.12.2004 and review petition was directed to be decided expeditiously. Thereafter, State sought transfer of the matter. Accordingly, review petition was transferred from the Court of A.D.J., Chopan to the Court of A.D.J., Anpara through order dated 20.10.1991. Against the said transfer order, Writ Petition No. 33315 of 1991 was filed. Writ Petition was disposed of on 9.12.2004 and review petition was directed to be decided expeditiously. Several objections/applications had been filed before the A.D.J. The A.D.J., Anpara at District Sonebhadra dismissed all the applications as well as review petition on 8.12.2005 which order has been challenged through this writ petition. 6. The applications were for inspection by the Judge. From the order-sheet dated 7.12.2005, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, it is clear that 8.12.2005 was fixed for orders on four applications 56-ga, 57-ga, 59-ga and 60-ga, however on 8.12.2005 the applications were dismissed and review petition was also dismissed. Petitioner State filed an application for recall of the order on the ground that on the review, petitioner’s arguments had not been heard, however that application was rejected on 6.1.2006 which order has also been challenged through this writ petition. 7. The first and foremost thing is that the judgment of the Supreme Court was in respect of Adiwasis, who are ignorant of legal proceedings and their rights. It was not basically meant for the benefit of high caste literate influential people like the respondents. Sections 4, 6, 9 and 20 Notifications of the Forest Act had been issued much earlier. In para-4 of the objections filed by the respondents, it was stated that the objectors had taken the land in dispute from Zamindar Raja Sahab Badahar and from the date of patta (lease) they were in possession. In para-5, it was stated that in connection with their jobs objectors often resided out side the district, hence at the time of survey (partal) possession of the respondents could not be entered. In the order passed by Forest Settlement Officer somewhere in 1988, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the issue which was framed by the Forest Settlement Officer was as to whether objectors had proved their possession since before 1385 Fasli (1977-78 A.D.). Without assigning any reason and without discussing any evidence, Forest Settlement Officer held that objectors were in possession since before 1358 Fasli. In the order the only thing mentioned is that objectors had filed photo-stat copy of khatauni of the Zamindar 1358 Fasli. Without assigning any reason and without discussing any evidence, Forest Settlement Officer held that objectors were in possession since before 1358 Fasli. In the order the only thing mentioned is that objectors had filed photo-stat copy of khatauni of the Zamindar 1358 Fasli. Neither it is mentioned that why original certified copy of khatauni could not be filed nor it was mentioned that what was mentioned in the said khatauni. However, it is quite clear that the photo-stat copy of khatauni contained the name of the Zamindar. Absolutely no reason was given by the respondents that why after grant of patta their names were not entered in the revenue record. Even alleged patta was not filed. 8. In paragraph-26 of the writ petition, it has been mentioned that as per Voter List of the year 1997 and as per certificate of the Collector in respect of Hari Prakash Shukla, who was a principal in a college, the objectors were born in between 1952 to 1956. In the service record, date of birth of Hari Prakash Shukla was mentioned as 1948. Accordingly, in 1950-51 when alleged patta was granted by the Zamindar in favour of the respondents, the eldest of respondents was only four years old. Para-26 of the writ petition has vaguely been denied in para-26 of the counter-affidavit. It has been stated that “It is common knowledge that the age in the voter list is not correctly recorded.” Thereafter, it is mentioned that there is no bar in executing patta in favour of minors especially with other brothers who were major. Thereafter, it is mentioned that the mere minority of some of the answering respondents would not invalidate the patta. 9. Moreover, the manner in which the Courts below dismissed the review petition leaves much to be desired. 10. The experience of the Court is that the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court of Adiwasi Sewa Ashram, which was meant to be for the benefit of Adiwasis, has utterly been misused and abused by influential high caste persons and has been converted into a weapon to usurp forest land. This was not the intention of the Supreme Court. All such matters require thorough consideration where influential people having other agricultural lands and other professions and good income have looted the forest land by utterly abusing the above judgment of the Supreme Court. 11. This was not the intention of the Supreme Court. All such matters require thorough consideration where influential people having other agricultural lands and other professions and good income have looted the forest land by utterly abusing the above judgment of the Supreme Court. 11. In the instant case, I find that both the impugned orders are utterly erroneously in law. The Supreme Court made its intention further clear in para-5 of the aforesaid judgment while quoting its earlier order dated 15.12.1983, which is quoted below: “5. On 15.12.1983, this Court made another order which indicated that the Court was of the view that another High Powered Committee should be appointed. The relevant portion of that order was to the following effect: ...the parties will discuss the composition and modalities of the High Power Committee to be appointed by the Court for the purpose of adjudicating the various claims of the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and other backward classes in Robertsganj and Dudhi Tehsils of Mirzapur District. Notice will also specify, that the Court proposes to appoint a High Power Committee consisting of retired High Court Judge and two other officers for the purposes of adjudicating upon the claims of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes in Dudhi and Robertsganj Tehsils of their land entitlements as also to examine the hereditary and customary rights of farmers in those tehsils and to adjudicate upon the claims of tribals of their customary rights with respect to fodder, fuel, wood, small timber, sand and stones for the houses, timber for agricultural implements, flowers, fruits and minor forest produce.” 12. Accordingly, the benefit of the aforesaid judgment by no stretch of imagination can be availed by high caste people. Even the claim of those Scheduled Caste and O.B.Cs. people, who had other means through which they were earning good income or who had other land will have to be adjudged very very strictly. The judgment of the Supreme Court is basically confined to those Scheduled Caste and O.B.C. persons who had no other land and no other source of income. Benefit to them also is to be confined to reasonable extent of area and not dozens or scores of acres of forest land. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. All the impugned orders are set aside. Respondents shall forthwith be evicted and land must be restored as reserved forest. Benefit to them also is to be confined to reasonable extent of area and not dozens or scores of acres of forest land. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. All the impugned orders are set aside. Respondents shall forthwith be evicted and land must be restored as reserved forest. Proceedings for recovery of damages for the period for which respondents remained in possession may also be instituted against them by the deputy Collector, however in the said proceedings orders shall be passed only after serving notice upon the respondents and hearing them. ——————