ORDER : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwary and learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has submitted, that petitioners have preferred this writ petition on 17.10.2020 for a direction upon the respondents to release the land of the petitioners measuring 18 acres of land of plot No.296 Village Banji, Thana No.159 of Mandu, the then District:- Hazaribag now Ramgarh, with boundary:- North Parti, South Parti, East Parti & West Beni Ganjhu. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that land had been settled in favour of ancestors of the petitioners from Ramgarh Raj in the year 1941. Xerox copy of the hukumnama & Fard Amin report have been brought on record as Annexures 1 and 1/A to the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that on getting the said settlement from Ramgarh Raj the ancestors of the present petitioners have came in exclusive possession of the said land and paid rent to the Ramgarh Raj and accordingly the Ramgarh Raj issued rent receipt, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary have further submitted, that after vesting of the Jamindari, the State Authorities have also recognized the possession of ancestors of the petitioners and issued rent receipts in favour of them and even after their death in favour of the present petitioners, xerox copy of rent receipt have been brought on record as Annexure-3 series to the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that in the year 1960-62, some dispute has arisen due to the fact that the lands which are in exclusive possession of ancestors of the petitioners are being shown in the map of forest department, prepared in the year, 1961 and the forest officers on the basis of said map started laying claim over the said land, which is in exclusive possession of the ancestors of the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, in view of the objection made by the Forest authorities, an application was filed by the ancestors of the petitioners before the Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh, for release of the aforesaid land from the forest area, in which the Divisional Forest Officer (D.F.O) was made party and the Divisional Forest Officer appeared and filed his reply. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that on the basis of application filed by ancestors of the petitioners, Case No.338 of 1962-63 was instituted and evidence on behalf of both the parties were taken by the Forest Settlement Officer and finally by the order dated 08.12.1962 the land measuring 18 acres of Khata No.1, plot No.296, Village -Banji, Thana No.159 of police station Mandu, District:-Hazaribag now Ramgarh has been released in favour of ancestors of these petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that this order was also forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, vide memo No.117 dated 08.12.1962 and no appeal or revision has been preferred against that said order in last 60 years, thus, order dated 08.12.1962 attains finality. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that petitioners have filed rejoinder on 27.07.2022 bringing on record, the information provided under Right to Information Act, 2005 by District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh vide Memo No.828 dated 20.11.2014, that 18 acres of land of Plot No.296 is raiyati land. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary has further submitted, that even after passing of order on 08.12.1962 by Forest Settlement Officer, in Case No.338 of 1962-63, which was also forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh vide Memo No.117 dated 08.12.1962, the respondent-authorities have not made correction in the map, as such, this Court may direct Divisional Forest Officer to correct the map forthwith. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has submitted, that a counter-affidavit has been filed by Mr. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has submitted, that a counter-affidavit has been filed by Mr. Jiteshwar Singh, S/o Late Andu Singh, Range Forest Officer, Ramgarh on 28.11.2020 making specific averment at para-14, which may profitably be quoted hereunder:- “14.That it is submitted that after coming into force of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and as per section 2 of Forest Conservation Act no forest land could be used for nor forestry purposes and even lands recorded as Jungle Jhar comes under the definition of forest land.” 13. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has further submitted, that after enactment of Bihar Land Reforms and Act, 1950, the procedure laid down was not followed and no return as envisaged under B.L.R. rule was followed by the land holders before the competent authority and rule 7B i.e., 'Form K' was not filed under B.L.R rule 1951 and no 'Form M' under rule 71 was prepared by government for fixing fair rent in favour of the petitioner or erstwhile land holders and after enactment of B.L.R Act, the landlord interest vested with the state and were free from all encumbrances and collection of rent was prohibited for demarcated protected forest land. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has further placed para 21 of the counter-affidavit dated 28.11.2020 which may be quoted hereunder:- “21.That it is submitted that Section 29, sub-section 3 of Indian Forest Act clearly specifies that no such notification shall be made unless the nature and extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or over the forest land or waste land comprised therein have been inquired into and recorded at a survey or settlement or in such other manner as the stage government thinks sufficient. Every such record shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved. Admittedly the first notification was issued in the year 1953 and since then no one has made any claim or raised any protest with regard to notification issued by government. Therefore, forest department has acquired right, title and interest over the said forest land declared as protected forest. The most significant aspect of sub-section 3 of Section 29 of Indian Forest Act is that onus lies upon claimant of said land to prove his right, title over the said land otherwise contrary view shall be taken. Therefore, forest department has acquired right, title and interest over the said forest land declared as protected forest. The most significant aspect of sub-section 3 of Section 29 of Indian Forest Act is that onus lies upon claimant of said land to prove his right, title over the said land otherwise contrary view shall be taken. The claimants have not been able to prove the same and therefore they cannot claim any right over the said land. It is further submitted that after coming into force of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and as per section 2 of Forest Conservation Act, no forest land could be used for non forestry purposes and even lands recorded as Jungle Jhar comes under the definition of forest land. Even the lands belonging to a private person but occupied by trees comes within the mischief of this act irrespective of ownership. Since notification has been issued under Section 29 of Indian Forest Act therefore, Government has got proprietary right over the said land. The statements containing that it shall not abridge or affect any existing right of individual or communities clearly specifies that local people shall be at liberty to use such forest land for grazing purposes or for collection of firewood by the local villagers but by any stretch of imagination, the said forest land cannot be used for any non forestry purposes. However, in any circumstances notification has been issued by the Government and it is still in force. Further it is submitted that in view of Judgment reported in (2008) 4 J.C.R. Page 557 (Jhr). Sulochana Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand, the Hon'ble Court has clearly specified that even the Forest Department of the State has got no jurisdiction to make any change in the gazette notification without permission of Central Government after commencement of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and also in view of the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by Hon'nle Supreme Court in Civil Writ No.202 of 1995 as reported in AIR 1997 SCC. 1228. That in para-10, it has been observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court also had the occasion to consider the same in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC-1229 wherein it was specifically held that under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act nothing could be done without the prior approval of the Central Government i.e., MOEF. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC-1229 wherein it was specifically held that under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act nothing could be done without the prior approval of the Central Government i.e., MOEF. It is also held that forest land does not only include forest as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record, irrespective of the ownership. That the aforesaid notification under the provision of Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued way back in the year 1953 itself and holds good even on the date. It is pertinent to mention that no one has challenged the notification issued in the year 1953 declaring the said land as a Reserve Protected Forest and as such after a lapse of 67 years the status of land as forest land has attained finality and the Forest Department has preferred its right, title and interest over the said forest land. The concerned parties have very conveniently omitted to place the entire description of sub-section 3 of Section 29 of Indian Forest Act which contains that every such record shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved.” 15. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has further submitted, that supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed by Mr. Ved Prakash Kamboj, S/o Late Keshwar, Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh on 04.08.2022, para 5 of which may profitably be quoted hereunder:- “5.That it is humbly stated and submitted that the protected forest was declared by notification dated 02.01.1953 and Plot No.296 Khata No.1 was declared protected forest. Thereafter enquiry was made by the Forest Settlement Officer and Final Map of the Protected Forest of Village-Banji, Thana No.159, thana-Mandu was prepared which is duly certified by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh East Division.” 16. Admittedly, the Divisional Forest Officer has relied upon the notification, issued on 02.01.1953 with a schedule of plots where the land of plot No.296 is mentioned at page No.28 of counter affidavit dated 28.11.2020 and as such, this Court may consider the same as protected forest. 17. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, that the Range Forest Officer, Ramgarh has submitted, those facts which are not on record. The Range Forest Officer, Ramgarh Jiteshwar Singh by filing the counter-affidavit on 28.11.2020 has relied upon Annexure-A i.e. the notification dated 02.01.1953 without understanding it properly. 17. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, that the Range Forest Officer, Ramgarh has submitted, those facts which are not on record. The Range Forest Officer, Ramgarh Jiteshwar Singh by filing the counter-affidavit on 28.11.2020 has relied upon Annexure-A i.e. the notification dated 02.01.1953 without understanding it properly. He has submitted that relevant part may be recorded hereunder:- “The nature and extent of the rights of Government and of private persons in or over the forest lands and waste lands comprised in this notification have not yet been enquired into and recorded as laid down in sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the said Act, but as the State Government thinks that such enquiry and record will occupy such length of time as in the meantime to endanger the rights of Government and as the enquiry and record of rights will thereafter be made, this notification is issued subject to all existing rights of individuals or the communities.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, that State Government has failed to bring on record enquiry made under sub-section 3 of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, as such, this notification has not taken effect till date with regard to right of the petitioners. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that State has adopted a method of filing counter-affidavits, one by Mr. Jiteshwar Singh, Forest Range Officer, Ramgarh and another by Mr. Ved Prakash Kamboj, Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh placing reliance upon the documents without understanding the documents and thus these are the reasons for keeping the matter pending for a long period. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that this Court may pass order with regard to filing of the counter-affidavits, otherwise the State will file counter-affidavit as and when such pleading are required without verifying the record and this act of the State must be deprecated by this Court as the Officers without understanding the notification have submitted before the Court contrary to the spirit of the notification. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that up-to-date rent receipt has been issued by the Circle Officer and raiyati manayata has been considered by the Revenue Department. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that up-to-date rent receipt has been issued by the Circle Officer and raiyati manayata has been considered by the Revenue Department. Forest Officer has not assailed the order dated 08.12.1962 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer, in case No.338 of 1962-63 before the Competent Authority, though the same has already been communicated by Memo No.117 dated 08.12.1962 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, as such, order of Forest Settlement Officer has attained finality and even then the Forest Range Officer is filing affidavit stating that it is the duty of the petitioners to prove the same and if not done, the same shall go in favour of the State. The State does not understand what they are pleading before the High Court and as such this Court may pass necessary order. 22. Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III has placed reliance upon relevant para of Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit filed by Jiteshwar Singh, S/o Late Andu Singh on 28.11.2020, which is Letter No.E/XXIV-3046/59-1468-LR, dated Patna, the 18.02.1960 from the Secretary to the Government, of Bihar Revenue Department to all Collectors and has submitted that same may be quoted hereunder:- “Subject:- Issue of rent receipt by Karamoharis for land within the demarcated forest. 2. Government desire that Karamoharis should not receive rent or issue rent receipts for plots located within the demarcated forests except where such recognition have been specifically reported by the Divisional Forest Officers to the Collector, Collectors may also obtain a list of all such lands from the Divisional Forest Officers and in turn send these lists to the Auchal Offices with instruction to advise the Karamaharis to issue rent receipts only in those cases. Any other cultivated plots which come to the notice of the Karamcharis may be reported to the Auchal Adhikaris who may take up the matter with the Divisional Forest Officer concerned for recognition or suitable action for eviction. All Officers under you may be informed accordingly.” 23. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Any other cultivated plots which come to the notice of the Karamcharis may be reported to the Auchal Adhikaris who may take up the matter with the Divisional Forest Officer concerned for recognition or suitable action for eviction. All Officers under you may be informed accordingly.” 23. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, has submitted, that since the land was never a forest land, as such, this letter of State Government is not applicable, which shall be apparent from the fact that even on today as per information furnished under Right to Information Act by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh, this land is a rayati land, as such, the objection raised by the State is of no use and that is fit to be rejected. 24. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that State is trying to confuse the Court by filing affidavits without understanding the document and without placing the document before this Court and thus, numerous counter-affidavits are being filed in such manner. State can file one counter-affidavit by way of right to contest a case, but multiple counter-affidavit cannot be allowed to be filed without leave of the Court or without permission of the Court. If such, affidavits are taken on record without understanding the pros and cons of the counter-affidavit, writ petition become voluminous, as such, this Court directs the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand to issue a direction with regard to filing of the counter-affidavit in detail as these are the reasons for pendency of the cases. 25. So far merit of the case is concerned, as stated above, petitioners have claimed the land on the basis of the settlement made by Ramgarh Raj before vesting of the estate and has shown the rent receipt issued by the Ramgarh Raj followed by the rent receipt issued by the State of Bihar, recognizing the petitioners as raiyat of the land, which continued till today. A map was prepared in the year, 1961, which has created some problem to the petitioners, as every time Forest Officers are claiming over the same land without having any document thus petitioners thought proper to prefer a writ petition before this Court, so as to clarify the same, annexing document of Case No.338 of 1962-63, which has been decided by the Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh on 08.12.1962 whereby 18 acres of land of Plot No.296 village Banji, Thana No.159, police station Mandu has been released in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners. The said order was also communicated to the DFO, Hazaribagh vide Memo No.117 dated 08.12.1962, but no steps were taken by the State against order dated 08.12.1961 nor made correction in the map. 26. This Court has examined the record and found that the map relied upon by the petitioners is of the year, 1961 on the basis of notification dated 02.01.1953, which has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed by Mr. Jiteshwar Singh on 28.11.2020. This notification itself shows that the Government will initiate an enquiry under Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act. Admittedly, no document has been placed by the respondents-State or the Forest Department to show that inquiry was conducted, as such, this document is tentative document, which cannot create a right in favour of the Forest Department with regard to a raiyati land, which has been admitted by the Revenue Authority by issuing rent receipt and by furnishing information by the Land Acquisition Officer Hazaribagh in the year, 2014, which has been brought on record as Annexure-7 of rejoinder to the counter-affidavit dated 27.07.2022 filed by the petitioners, whereby raiyati Manyata has been considered, vide Memo No.828 dated 20.11.2014 so far 18 acres land of Plot No.296 is concerned. 27. 27. This Court has no hesitation in holding, that the land has been released by the Forest Settlement Officer in Case No.338 of 1962-63, vide order dated 08.12.1962 and the same was also communicated to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh vide Memo No.117 dated 08.12.1962 and prior to that the rent receipt of Ramgarh Raj, the rent receipt of the State of Bihar after vesting of the Ramgarh Raj, ex-landlord and admitting petitioners raiyati right vide Memo No.828 dated 20.11.2014, issued under the signature of Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribagh whereby the claim of the petitioners being raiyat of Plot No.296, area 18 acres are not under dispute, as such, objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents-State, Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III that kramchari has no right to issue the rent receipt with respect to the Forest Land is not acceptable to the Court as this land has never been declared to the Forest land rather, this shows the inaction on the part of the Forest Officials. Even after passing of an order by the Forest Settlement Officer in Case No.338 of 1962-63 and the same has also been communicated to the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh but the State officials have not taken any step to assail the same in appeal or revision. After 60 years, they are also not admitting their own documents and thus, this plea is not acceptable. Till date, this land does not belong to the Forest Department, as such, Forest Department is hereby debarred from entry into the aforesaid land until and unless declaration is sought from the competent court of law. 28. So far the plea taken with regard to Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is concerned, this is only limited with the forest land. Since the land does not belong to the Forest, this act is not applicable, as submitted by Mr. Jiteshwar Singh, Range Forest Officer, Ramgarh. 29. This Court also directs the State Government to look into such matters because this shows the inefficiency of the State Government and their officers in filing such frivolous counter-affidavits before this Court without annexing the concerned documents and claiming the land in such manner, accordingly, the State is debarred from entry into the 18 acres of land of plot no. 296 until order is passed by competent authority. 30. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. 31. 296 until order is passed by competent authority. 30. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. 31. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, through FAX/E-mail for kind perusal.