Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2448 (ALL)

Jagdish v. State of U. P.

2014-08-12

A.P.SAHI, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has come up praying for a similar order as granted by this Court in three writ petitions being writ petition No. 65195 of 2009, writ petition No. 74905 of 2011 and writ petition No. 54850 of 2012. 3. The petitioner submits that he is seeking his remedy to protect the extinction of his rights over the land in question keeping in view the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 4. It appears that proceedings of proclamation were undertaken by the Forest Settlement Officer after a notification under Section 4 followed by a process under Section 6. 5. The petitioner contends that in respect of the disputed land since the petitioner had no knowledge and his rights were likely to be extinguished, he filed an objection after the said proclamation as the notification under Section 20 till today has not been made. This right has been presumably exercised by the petitioner under Section 9 of the 1927 Act. 6. Learned counsel submits that during the pendency of such a claim the petitioner is sought to be dispossessed and therefore in view of the orders that have been relied on by the petitioner should be also considered for grant of a similar relief. 7. From the scheme of the Act, we find that after a proclamation is made under Section 6 and inquiry is held as envisaged under Section 7, orders are to be passed by the Forest Settlement Officer in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 8. 8. Section 8 is quoted herein under for ready reference : “8. Powers of Forest Settlement Officers.—For the purpose of such inquiry, the Forest Settlement Officer may exercise the following powers, that is to say : (a) power to enter, by himself or any officer authorised by him for the purpose, upon any land, and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same; and (b) the powers of a Civil Court in the trial of suits.” 9. It is thus clear from the aforesaid provision that the Forest Settlement Officer has also been empowered to exercise the powers of a Civil Court as in the trial of suits. This necessarily entails the granting of an interim relief as it would be implied due to the wide powers as conferred under Section 8(b). 10. It is thus clear from the aforesaid provision that the Forest Settlement Officer has also been empowered to exercise the powers of a Civil Court as in the trial of suits. This necessarily entails the granting of an interim relief as it would be implied due to the wide powers as conferred under Section 8(b). 10. The aforesaid provision also in our opinion would apply to an objection as undertaken under Section 9, as such an objection will be an extension of an objection which can be filed during the proceedings of an inquiry under Section 7 by one who had not filed objections earlier, but before the publication of Section 20. 11. Consequently, the Forest Settlement Officer will not be exercising mere summary powers but also the powers of a Civil Court as in the trial of a suit. If that is the position then the Forest Settlement Officer would also have the power to grant an interim relief. 12. We have carefully perused all the three orders that have been passed and referred to hereinabove. In all the three orders we do not find any such consideration of the aforesaid provisions. 13. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the objections have to be decided by the Forest Settlement Officer and in case an objection is pending in accordance with law then an objector has a right to move an appropriate application in terms of the aforesaid provisions and the Forest Settlement Officer is obliged to pass an appropriate order thereon, but only after examining the entire facts including the date of the notifications, proclamation and the status of the application of the petitioner and its maintainability. 14. Consequently, the alleged objection of the petitioner may be examined and then disposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer within three months and further if the same has not already been disposed of it is open to the petitioner to file an application for grant of interim relief as well. 15. It is clarified that we have not held the objection to be either maintainable or not in accordance with law, nor we have entered into the merits thereof leaving it to the authority to examine the same as observed hereinabove. 16. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. —————