JUDGMENT : 1. By means of filing the present writ application under Articles 14, 19, 21 & 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – a marginal farmer, who is tilting the land since the time of his forefathers and apprehending threat of dispossession at the hands of the respondents herein - has inter alia prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to evict him forcibly, and thereby allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the possession note issued by the Range Forest Officer on 14th June 2006. 2. Brief facts, as averred in the writ application are that the petitioner is occupant of a piece of land, bearing Survey No. 2-paiki admeasuring 13.30 Acres of Chikhal Kuba, Survey No. 47-paiki admeasuring 10 Acres of Chikhal Kuba, since the time immorable. The grand-father of the petitioner named Suleiman Nathubhai Multani had paid Vigoti over the land in question for many years and after the death of landholder, Division Forest Officer vide Order dated 27th December 1971 entered name of Piru Suleiman, who was adopted son of the original landholder- Suleiman Nathu. For all these years, grandfather of the petitioner and petitioner cultivated the land, however, due to persisting interference into the possession of the petitioner, he was compelled to move Civil Court by preferring a Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1989, which eventually came to be decreed on 30th March 1991 on certain terms and conditions. Aggrieved petitioner moved the District Court at Junagadh by filing a Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1991 against the judgement and decree passed by learned Civil Judge [SD], Veraval in Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1989, which too came to be dismissed, giving rise to filing of the present writ application, on an apprehension of eviction from the land. 3. Heard Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the land, bearing Survey No. 2 paiki admeasuring 3.30 acres of Chikhal Kuba and Survey No. 47 paiki, admeasuring 10 acre of Chikhal Kuba was given to grand father of the petitioner, namely, Suleiman Nathubhai Multani. Hardik Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the land, bearing Survey No. 2 paiki admeasuring 3.30 acres of Chikhal Kuba and Survey No. 47 paiki, admeasuring 10 acre of Chikhal Kuba was given to grand father of the petitioner, namely, Suleiman Nathubhai Multani. That, he had paid the “Vigoti” of the land in question for number of years and after his death, name of his adopted son Piru Suleiman was entered in the record of the respondents on 27th December 1971. Since then, the father of the petitioner and petitioner himself were cultivating the land and were in possession, but the respondents suddenly prevented their entry into the said land. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Regular Civil suit No. 177 of 1989 in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) at Veraval for protecting his possession of the land in dispute and thereby restraining the respondents to make any disturbance into the land. That, the said suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge in favour of the petitioner. However, on advise given to the petitioner, Regular Civil Appeal No. 105/1989 was preferred by the petitioner for limited purpose to challenge the observations made by the learned Civil Judge that the land cannot be cultivated by anyone else except the plaintiff and he has to make an application so that the defendants can decide the prayer of the plaintiff. That, the learned District Judge, Junagadh, on 5th February 1999, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Court at Veraval. That, the petitioner preferred Second Appeal, bearing No. 20 of 1999 before this Court, but it was dismissed for non prosecution. That, the restoration of Second Appeal, being Misc. Civil Application No. 2436/2001 was preferred by the petitioner, which was also dismissed. That, another Misc. Civil Application No. 1026/2006 was preferred by the petitioner to restore Misc. Civil Application No. 2436/2001, which was also dismissed by an order dated 19th July 2006. That, the decree passed by the learned Civil court in Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1989 was never challenged by the respondents and it became final. However, illegal by the possession of land was taken over by the respondent from one Mr. Civil Application No. 2436/2001, which was also dismissed by an order dated 19th July 2006. That, the decree passed by the learned Civil court in Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1989 was never challenged by the respondents and it became final. However, illegal by the possession of land was taken over by the respondent from one Mr. Hasubhai Isubhai by preparing a possession receipt dated 14.06.2006 without the consent of the petitioner. That, the respondent cannot take possession of the disputed land from the petitioner through third party, by preparing a possession receipt, as he is cultivating the land in dispute. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that in similar matter ie., in Special Civil Application No. 10799 of 2001, this Court has taken a view by granting relief to the petitioner. Hence, it was requested by him to allow this petition and hand over part of the land to the petitioner and set aside the so-called possession receipt dated 14.06.2006 issued by the Range Forest Officer, Tulshi Shyam Range, Khambha. 5. On the other side, Mr. Hardik Soni, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not residing at village Chikhal Kuba and residing at Surat. That, as per the Indian Forest Settlement, a plot of the land was given to the grand father of the petitioner for taking crop from the said land till he was alive. That, the land which belonged to the State cannot be transferred by anyone by way of sale, mortgage or by giving gift to anybody. That, land was given to one Piru Suleiman for the purpose of cultivating the said land for their maintenance and after the death of his father, the present petitioner has to get the land transferred to his name as per the rules and has to protect his possession. That, he is not entitled to give the said land to any other person. That, the petitioner was not cultivating the land by getting the said land transferred on his name and he went away to Surat. That, he is not entitled to give the said land to any other person. That, the petitioner was not cultivating the land by getting the said land transferred on his name and he went away to Surat. That, inspite of settlement, he was not cultivating the land, or no procedure was followed by him to transfer the land in his favour, but the plaintiff had given the said land to some other persons and waived his right by leaving the said land fallow and therefore, there was clear breach of terms of the settlement. That, the respondents are entitled to restrain unauthorized persons entering into the land in dispute. Therefore, the possession of the land was given to the respondents by Shri Hashu Isu, who was illegal occupant in the land. That, the possession receipt was issued by the respondent under the intimation to the said person Hashu Isu. That, the petitioner has no right to return the possession or to get back the possession of the land in dispute, as prayed for. Hence, it was requested by him to dismiss the petition. 6. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties and material placed on record, it appears that grand father of the petitioner, namely, Suleiman Nathubhai Multani and one Mr. Khoda Hamir, as per various settlements, were granted the land at village Chikhalkuba, Ta: Una vide Survey No. 2 , Acre 27-19 guntha and they were cultivating the land, both of them made partition of land and out of the said land, land admeasuring 13 Acres and 30 Gunthas of northern side came to the share of grand-father of the petitioner namely Nathubhai. That, after the death of grand father Suleiman, father of the present petitioner Pirubhai was cultivating the land of Survey No.2, admeasuring acre 13-30 guntha of northern side and 10 guntha of Survey No. 46. The father of the petitioner became a khatedar and occupier of the said land as per the order dated 27th December 1971. 7. After the death of father of the petitioner, plaintiff came into possession of the land in dispute and he was cultivating the land as well as taking products from the said land. It appears that revenue was also paid in connection with the land to the Forest Department. 7. After the death of father of the petitioner, plaintiff came into possession of the land in dispute and he was cultivating the land as well as taking products from the said land. It appears that revenue was also paid in connection with the land to the Forest Department. As per the averments made by the petitioner, on 28.09.1984, when the petitioner went to take crops from the land, he was restrained by the respondent from taking crops, and therefore, he was constrained to file Regular Civil Suit No. 177 before the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Veraval seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering with possession. The said suit eventually came to be decreed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Veraval on 30.03.1991, by restraining the respondent not to make any disturbance in regard to possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was also directed to pay revenue tax before the Forest Department regularly and to cultivate land by himself. He was restrained to permit any third person to cultivate the land and on being failed to comply with the condition, the respondents were reserved liberty to take necessary action in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner was also directed to apply before the respondents to transfer the land in dispute in his favour, as legal heir of deceased- Suleiman Nathu, within a period of one month from the date of passing of decree and the respondent was directed to decide the application preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the petitioner by filing Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1991, wherein, the learned District Judge, Junagadh, by an order dated 05.02.1999, was pleased to dismiss the Appeal with costs. 9. It appears from the documents produced on record at page No. 31-33 that after the judgment came to be passed by the learned District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1991 dated 05.02.1999, possession of the land in dispute was taken away by the respondents, from one Mr. Hashu Isu, who was alleged occupant of the land. The possession receipt was issued by the Range Forest Officer, Tulshi Shyam Range, Khambha on the very same day. Hashu Isu, who was alleged occupant of the land. The possession receipt was issued by the Range Forest Officer, Tulshi Shyam Range, Khambha on the very same day. It appears that against the judgment and order passed by learned District Judge, Junagadh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1998, the petitioner had preferred Second Appeal No. 20/1999, which too was dismissed for want of prosecution, and for restoration of Second Appeal No. 20/1999, Misc. Civil Application No. 2436/2001 was filed, which was also dismissed, and thereafter, for restoration of said Misc. Civil Application No. 2436/2001, one Misc. Civil Application No. 1026/2006 was also preferred by the petitioner, which too was dismissed by an order dated 19th July 2006. 10. In the Civil Suit or in an appeal, there was no question of taking away possession, or to return possession of the suit land by the either side. It appears that after dismissal of Regular Civil Appeal No. 105/1991, the respondents had, by misinterpreting the judgment, tried to get illegal possession of the land in dispute from one Shri Hashu Isu and two different possession receipts dated 14.06.2006 were issued. The decree passed by the learned Civil Judge and the judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No. 105/1991 were never challenged by the respondents at any point of time. The court of learned Civil Judge has restrained the defendants to interfere with possession of the land in dispute of the plaintiff in its final order. The defendant, before the Court below, has also admitted that the land was given to his grand father Suleiman by respondent for cultivating the land. In absence of the petitioner or without the consent of the petitioner, the defendants cannot get possession of the land in dispute from one Shri Hashu Isu. No signature of the petitioner is taken in the alleged possession receipt dated 14.06.2006. Thus, the said possession cannot be said to be a legal possession taken from the petitioner. It is the submission of learned advocate Mr. M.A. Kharadi for the petitioner that family members of the petitioner should be permitted to cultivate the land in dispute and there should be no disturbance by the respondents in cultivating the land by any of them, being legal heir of the deceased Suleiman. It is the submission of learned advocate Mr. M.A. Kharadi for the petitioner that family members of the petitioner should be permitted to cultivate the land in dispute and there should be no disturbance by the respondents in cultivating the land by any of them, being legal heir of the deceased Suleiman. As per the terms and conditions of the Forest Settlement, no other persons except the labourers, if hired by the petitioner, can be permitted to cultivate the land in dispute. Hence, the request made by the learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be acceded to, by permitting the other family members of the petitioner to cultivate the land in dispute. 11. Resultantly, the present writ application succeeds. Interim relief granted earlier is confirmed. Possession receipt [“Kabja Pavti ”] dated 14th June 2006 issued by the Range Forest Officer taking over possession of the land in question is declared void, on the following specific directions : [a] If the petitioner, at any point of time, is found committing breach of any of the conditions of the settlement deed, the respondents shall be at liberty to take action for getting back the possession of the land, in accordance with law. [b] By way of an affidavit, the petitioner shall disclose before the respondents-authorities, the names of labourer with their identification details, who are working under his supervision. [c] The petitioner shall also pay entire outstanding dues; as may be worked out by the respondents authorities, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rule nisi made absolute to the aforestated extent.