JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made to a judgment-dated 4.3.1998 passed by District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. 14-A/1995, whereby a suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration has been rejected. 2. In the suit in question, appellants/plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that an order-dated 21.6.1994 passed by the District Collector, Panna in Revenue Case No. 40A-63/92-93 under section 241 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) be declared as valid and based on the aforesaid order appropriate compensation be paid to the appellants for the trees which have been cut down from the area in question. According to the appellants, land bearing Khasra No. 5/2, Bandobast No. 52, Patwari Halka No.15 total area 4.92 Hectares, situated in village Kota, Tahsil and District Panna originally belonged to their mother, one Smt. Ghansi Bai, wife of Balloo Yadav. It is stated that the aforesaid land was recorded in the revenue records in the name of their mother. In the aforesaid land 388 Saugon Trees were available. Sometime in the year 1992, Late Smt. Ghansi Bai filed an application under section 241 of the Code seeking permission for cutting and disposal of certain trees situated on the land. The case was registered as Revenue Case No. 40-A/63/92-93; Collector, Panna is said to have investigated into the matter and finally passed an order on 21.6.1994 – Annexure P/1, permitting appellants’ mother to cut only 130 trees out of the 388 available on the land. It is said that based on the aforesaid order passed by the Collector upto 15.8.1994, appellants’ mother with the help of officials of the Forest Department had cut 130 Saugon Trees and thereafter she moved an application to the Forest Department for giving her payment for the aforesaid trees. However, in November 1994, she died and as till date nothing was done, appellants, who are her legal representatives, filed the suit in question, the suit having been dismissed this appeal is filed and the claim made now is that the order passed by the Collector be given effect to and based on the same, the amount payable to the appellants be paid. 3. 3. Shri Hemant Namdeo, learned counsel for the appellants, referred to the order-dated 21.6.1994 – Ex.P/1, and argued that the Collector has exercised his statutory powers under the Code; he had conducted a detailed inquiry wherein reports were called for from the Forest Officials, Sub Divisional Officer and Tehsildar; and, based on the permission granted by the Collector, appellants’ mother having cut the trees, they were entitled to the entire amount arising out of transfer of the trees to the Forest Department. Instead of declaring appellants entitled to the amount, the suit has been dismissed which is unsustainable. Taking us through the statements of certain witnesses available on record, Khasra Panchshala and the revenue records, showing the land entered in the name of appellants’ mother, learned counsel argued that the suit has been dismissed without appreciating the totality of the facts and circumstances, and when the land is shown to be belonging to appellants’ mother and when the trees were cut after permission and due approval of the Collector, the learned trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit. Referring to various documents available on record, particularly the revenue records, learned counsel tried to emphasize that the right of the appellants to the suit property, namely the land, is established and when the land is found to be belonging to the appellants and when the trees were cut after due permission and approval of the competent authority – namely the Collector, there was no occasion for dismissing the suit or denying benefit to the appellants. Accordingly, the prayer made is that the suit be decreed to the extent of declaration with regard to the letter and the rights accruing to the appellants by virtue of the letter dated 21.6.1994 – issued by Collector, Panna. 4. Smt. Nirmala Naik, learned Government Advocate, refuted the aforesaid and submitted that the land belongs to the Forest Department. A Notification has been issued in the Gazette dated 1.9.1969, declaring the entire land situated in village Kota to be forest land, under the territorial jurisdiction of the National Forest Area, Panna and as the land is found to be forest land, no permission could be granted by the Collector for cutting of the trees. A Notification has been issued in the Gazette dated 1.9.1969, declaring the entire land situated in village Kota to be forest land, under the territorial jurisdiction of the National Forest Area, Panna and as the land is found to be forest land, no permission could be granted by the Collector for cutting of the trees. Referring to the documents available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court, from paragraph 14 onwards, learned counsel tried to emphasize that in dismissing the suit, the trial Court has not committed any error warranting interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties as are indicated hereinabove, the learned trial Court framed 10 issues. One of the issues framed was as to whether the land in question belongs to the appellants and whether a declaration for giving effect to the letter dated 21.6.1994 can be issued. Learned court below has analysed the legal question involved in the matter and it is found that the land situated in village Kota falls within the jurisdiction of Panna National Park and it is a ‘Forest’ and a Notification has been issued by the Forest Department in the Gazette dated 25.4.1969, wherein the entire area including the land situated in village Kota, disputed in this writ petition, is declared as a ‘protected forest area’ (Protected Forest). The entire area consisting of various villages, including the village of Kota and Muheli, have been declared as ‘reserved forest’ and by placing reliance on various documents, particularly the revenue records for the period from 1969-1994, the findings recorded by the trial Court are to the following effect: (a) That, vide Notification published in the MP Gazette on 25.4.1969, the entire area falling in village Kota is declared as ‘reserve forest’ and therefore, once the area is declared as a ‘reserve forest’ nobody has any right to possession or title over the area, which is so reserved; (b) From the documents available on record, particularly the photocopies of the revenue records – Ex. P/10 onwards, obtained from the office of Commissioner Land Records and Settlement, Gwalior, it is seen that in the revenue records available, the entire land of village Kota and Jhardhoba of Panna District, has been declared as ‘forest land’ coming within the ambit of National Forest Area, Panna, and the land in question is found to be situated in the midst of this forest. (c) The relevant maps of the Forest Department for the period 7.5.1995 to 10.7.1995 have been examined and it is found that right from 1.9.1969, the entire area has been declared as forest area and it is reported in the map that in this area various encroachments by the villagers are available and with regard to the disputed area consisting of Khasra No.52/2 also, entry of encroachment by the appellants/plaintiffs is indicated. 7. The learned Court below has examined the revenue records from 1969 to 1994 and has found that the appellants have not been in possession of the land uninterruptedly for 30 years. It is found by the Court that the appellants even though are shown as owners in the revenue records, there is no actual possession and there is no patta or Bhumiswami rights conferred on them and they are found to be encroachers on the forest land. After evaluating the entire circumstances and based on the evidence that came on record, the finding is that the land in question is forest land, it could not be given on lease or patta to the appellants, the appellants are encroachers on the forest land, they are not in possession and, therefore, holding the letter issued by the Collector to be an illegal order, which is unsustainable, the suit is dismissed. 8. That apart, the learned Court has found that before passing the order on 21.6.1994 – vide Annexure P/1, the Collector has not conducted a proper inquiry. The learned Court below has referred to certain objections and report submitted by the Forest Department with regard to the area being forest area and it is said that ignoring these objections and reports, the Collector has passed an illegal order. The order of the Collector is said to be illegal on the ground that it has been passed without proper inquiry and as is contrary to the Notification issued by the Government of MP on 25.4.1969, declaring the entire area as a ‘reserve forest’. The order of the Collector is said to be illegal on the ground that it has been passed without proper inquiry and as is contrary to the Notification issued by the Government of MP on 25.4.1969, declaring the entire area as a ‘reserve forest’. This finding recorded by the trial Court is based on due appreciation of the evidence and material available on record and once it is found by the trial Court that the order passed by the Collector, declaration of which is sought for in this appeal, is found to be an illegal order, we cannot ignoring the said finding pass any decree in favour of the appellants. The overwhelming evidence and documents available on record do show that the appellants have no right to the property in question. It is clearly indicated in the judgment and decree passed that inspite of repeated opportunities being granted, the appellants/plaintiffs have not produced any patta or lease agreement or document to show their right to the property in question. It has been found that merely because their name is entered in the revenue records for certain period, they cannot claim ownership right of the land, their possession continuously for more than 30 years is also not established from the material available on record and, therefore, treating them to be encroachers and holding that the Collector has passed an illegal order permitting the appellants to cut the trees without conducting a proper inquiry, the suit has been dismissed. In doing so, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has not committed any error warranting interference. 9. The findings recorded by the trial Court, as indicated hereinabove, are based on due appreciation of the evidence and material that came on record. Except for placing heavy reliance on order-dated 21.6.1994 – Ex. P/1, issued by Collector, Panna, no infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial is pointed out at the time of hearing. Once from the overwhelming evidence that has come on record, it is clear that the land or the disputed area is a ‘reserve forest area’, as informed by the State Government; and when there is no evidence available on record to show that the appellants/plaintiffs have any right to ownership or title over the property, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter. 10. 10. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances finding the learned trial Court to have dismissed the suit after due appreciation of the evidence and material available on record and finding no case for interference, the appeal is dismissed without any order so as to costs.