JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 16879/2017, whereby, the writ petition filed by respondent has been allowed and the impugned order/communication (Annex.19 with the writ petition) dated 6.12.2017 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Udaipur, has been quashed and set aside and he has been directed to forthwith and not later then within period of two months issue the NOC for setting up petrol pump on the land in question in terms of letter of intent. 2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent-petitioner with the averments that he had purchased the land ad-measuring 0.4875 hectare from one Shanti Lal in revenue village Kaya Patwar Circle Kaya, Tehsil Girwa, Udaipur, vide registered sale deed dated 4.8.2018. It was claimed that originally the Arazi number of the land was 3103 and its total area was 12.3400 hectares, after settlement the new Arazi Number of the land was 6466, land admeasuring 1.9500 hectare was regularized in name of one Dhanraj out of the 12.3400 hectares of land of Arazi No. 3103. 3. It was indicated that the said parcel of land was entered as Arazi No. 6466/1. The land thereafter changed hands and ultimately a part of the said land ad-measuring 0.4875 hectares out of Khasra No. 6466/1 was transferred to petitioner by one Shanti Lal vide sale deed dated 4.8.2014. It was inter alia claimed that the said land ad-measuring 9 Bigha in Arazi No. 3103 was regularized by the Additional Tehsildar Girwa vide Missal No. 4967/1969 in the year 1969, however, on account of mistake of the Revenue Department despite regularization in favour of Dhanraj, in the revenue record the land was included in the land belonging to the Forest Department. Mr. Dhanraj filed a suit before the Additional District Collector, Udaipur, under Sections 88, 188 63(4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Act of 1955’) seeking declaration regarding the ownership and possession of the land and permanent injunction. 4. The suit, after contest, was dismissed by the Additional District Collector by judgment dated 30.6.2001. 5. Feeling aggrieved, Dhanraj filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. 6. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 28.1.2003 accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 30.6.2001 and declared Dhanraj as Khatedar of the land in Khasra No. 6466. 4. The suit, after contest, was dismissed by the Additional District Collector by judgment dated 30.6.2001. 5. Feeling aggrieved, Dhanraj filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. 6. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 28.1.2003 accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 30.6.2001 and declared Dhanraj as Khatedar of the land in Khasra No. 6466. The said judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority was not questioned by the respondents and the land continued to remain recorded in terms of the declaration in the name of the transferees from Dhanraj. 7. After purchase of land, the petitioner being desirous to establish a petrol pump applied for conversion of land with Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur, which was converted and allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (‘BPCL’) for establishing a retail outlet and letter of intent dated 8.2.2017 was issued. BPCL applied to the Additional District Collector, Udaipur, for No Objection Certificate for establishment of petrol pump on the said land. 8. The Additional District Collector sought No Objection from 9 departments including the Forest Department. Each department issued NOC, however, the Forest Department refused to issue NOC. In the meanwhile, on account of purchase by the petitioner, in the revenue record the portion of land purchased by the petitioner was given Arazi No. 7172/6466. It was also indicated that the Forest Department by its communication dated 6.12.2017 (Annex.19) indicated to the District Magistrate that as per the joint site inspection report dated 24.8.2017 of the Assistant Forest Conservator, Udaipur, Regional Forest Officer, Udaipur and Serveyor, the applied land is part of notified forest division Harniyamai Dagal and as the applied area is that of forest, no commercial activities be permitted. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 10. A reply to the writ petition was filed contesting the averments made therein. Submissions were made that a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1953 (‘the Act of 1953’) was issued on 21.11.1957, which was published on 2.11.1958 and in terms of Section 5, there is a bar of accrual of rights in such notified land. 10. A reply to the writ petition was filed contesting the averments made therein. Submissions were made that a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1953 (‘the Act of 1953’) was issued on 21.11.1957, which was published on 2.11.1958 and in terms of Section 5, there is a bar of accrual of rights in such notified land. Whereafter, final notification dated 1.6.1977 was issued, which has been published in December, 1977, and in view thereof, the very fact of regularization of land in favour of Dhanraj in the year 1969 was void ab-initio and is of no legal effect. Copy of Mokha report dated 13.8.2017 along with forwarding letter dated 24.8.2017, which formed the basis for issuance of the communication dated 6.12.2017 were placed on record. 11. Qua the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority, it was indicated that the said judgment dated 28.1.2003 was against the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and consequently, could not be relied on. 12. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, by the impugned order, after referring to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties that the notification dated 21.11.1957 was preliminary in nature, the final notification did not include the land comprised in Arazi No. 3103, the Revenue Appellate Authority had come to the conclusion that the land ad-measuring 9 Bigha was not part of the forest land and that the respondents were unable to dispute the finding of Revenue Appellate Authority that the land in question was distinct from forest area and consequently, came to the conclusion that the communication dated 6.12.2017 putting resistance to issuance of NOC, was without foundation and was grossly illegal and arbitrary preventing the petitioner to trade on his own land and consequently, passed the directions as noticed hereinbefore. 13. Learned AAG made vehement submissions that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are ex-facie contrary to the record and against the law. Submissions have been made that a bare look at the plea raised by the writ petitioner indicates that the claim made is that the original Khasra number of the land in question was 3103 min, which in the new settlement became 6466 and its area was 12.3400 hectares. Submissions have been made that a bare look at the plea raised by the writ petitioner indicates that the claim made is that the original Khasra number of the land in question was 3103 min, which in the new settlement became 6466 and its area was 12.3400 hectares. The land in question was recorded in the jamabandi for Samwat years 2052 to 2055 (Annex.5) in the name of Forest Department, which entry was repeated in jamabandi for the Samwat years 2056 to 2059 (Annex.7), wherein, based on the decree granted by the Revenue Appellate Authority, it was indicated that Arazi No. 6466/1 ad-measuring 1.9500 hectares be recorded in the name of Dhanraj the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. It was submitted that the notification (Annex.R/1) dated 21.11.1957 was issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1953 and once the said notification was issued in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 1953, the purported regularization (Annex.3) in the year 1969 could not have taken place and/or in view of Section 5 of the Act, the same was bad/void in law. 14. Further submissions were made that the entire basis of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is the finding recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority, wherein, a declaration was given that the land ad-measuring 9 Bigha in Khasra No. 3103 be recorded in the name of Dhanraj. It is submitted that the finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority is also in ignorance of law despite the fact that land in question has been recorded as forest land in the relevant jamabadi. 15. It was submitted that the entire basis of the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is based on submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner that in the notification the land comprised in Arazi No. 3103 has not been included. Submissions were made that Explanation to Section 4 of the Act of 1953 clearly provides that for the purpose of specifying the situation and limits of a reserved forest, it would be sufficient to describe the limits of forest by roads, rivers, bridges or other well known or readily intelligible boundaries and, therefore, the basis sought to be relied on for the said purpose, has led to arriving at a wrong conclusion. 16. 16. Submissions were also made on the basis of the map produced along with the reply to emphasize that the land in question specifically falls within a forest area and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 17. An additional submission was sought to be made that while the No Objection by the Additional District Collector has been sought qua Arazi No. 6466/1, the allotment order dated 23.10.2017 issued by UIT is of Arazi No. 7172/6466 and, therefore, no direction could have been issued for issuance of NOC without clarifying the said position. 18. Submissions have also been made that the Court could not have directed issuance of NOC straight-away without consideration of relevant aspects by the respondent Forest Department even if the land in question was not part of the forest area and on that count also, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. It was prayed that the order impugned be set aside and the petition be dismissed. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the appeal filed by the State has absolutely no substance, which deserves dismissal. It is submitted that a bare perusal of Annex.3 order of regularization and the jamabandi for Samwat years 2031-2034 (Annex.4), which corresponds to the year 1974-77, clearly reveal that land admeasuring 9 Bigha comprised in Arazi No. 3103, was regularized in favour of Dhanraj and in the jamabandi where the land in question comprising Khasra No. 3103 was recorded as ‘Bila Naam Sarkar’ by Entry No. 759, 9 Bigha of land was entered in the name of Dhanraj. 20. It was submitted that the reliance placed by the respondents on the revenue entries, wherein, the land comprised in Khasra No. 6466 has been recorded in the name of Forest Department is absolutely misplaced, inasmuch as, it is only on account of the wrong revenue entries regarding the land in the name of Forest Department that the predecessor of the petitioner Dhanraj filed suit seeking correction of the revenue entries, which suit though was dismissed by the Additional Collector, the Revenue Appellate Authority, on an appeal filed, after exhaustive discussion under various issues, categorically came to the conclusion that the land did not belong to the Forest Department and consequently, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. It is submitted that once the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority has not been challenged, the same has attained finality, the appellants are bound by the said judgment and cannot claim otherwise. 21. It was submitted that the plea raised about implication of provisions of Section 4 & 5 of the Act of 1953, has no basis, inasmuch as, the land never belonged to the Forest Department and only on account of wrong recording of the land as belonging to the Forest Department, the provisions cannot be applied. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 22. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 23. For establishment of retail outlet when the petitioner sought NOC from the District Magistrate, he in turn sought NOC from various departments including the Forest Department. The Forest Department inter-alia sent communication dated 6.12.2017 indicating that the land in question was part of the notified forest block Harniyamai Dagal. The said communication indicates that land comprised in Khasra No. 7172/6466 min ad-measuring 0.2600 Bigha was within Khasra No. 6466 of forest block Harniyamai Dagal and was, therefore, forest land. Apparently, the said report has been made on the basis that entire Khasra 6466 is forest land, which indication was made in ignorance of the fact that after the judgment by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the land admeasuring 9 Bigha was recorded in the name of Dhanraj as Khasra No. 6466/1, which is evident from the endorsement made in Jamabandi (Annex.7). 24. As noticed hereinbefore, apparently when in the jamabandi in the Samwat years 2056 to 2059 i.e. in the year 1995 onwards, the land in dispute was recorded as that of Forest Department, the plaintiff Dhanraj filed suit before the Additional District Collector, who dismissed the suit. 25. On appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the authority decided all the issues afresh and recorded findings that land ad-measuring 9 Bigha in Arazi No. 3103 was regularized in favour of Dhanraj in the year 1969. 25. On appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the authority decided all the issues afresh and recorded findings that land ad-measuring 9 Bigha in Arazi No. 3103 was regularized in favour of Dhanraj in the year 1969. The Revenue Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that by mutation No. 766, 105 Bigha 15 bishwa land was recorded as ‘Bila Naam’ regarding forest block Harniyamai Dagal, wherein, the total area of Khasra No. 3103 was indicated as 115 Bigha 15 biswa and, therefore, as out of 115 Bigha 9 biswa land, 105 Bigha 16 biswa land was recorded in the name of Forest Department, the land of the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority was different from the Forest Land. It was also concluded that as in the Khasra Milan Khasra No. 3103 has been shown as corresponding to new Khasra No. 6466, the same was different from forest land. 26. Once the Revenue Appellate Authority had recorded categorical finding based on the documentary evidence available before it, to which the department was a party and the same was thereafter followed by the revenue authorities and land in question came to be recorded in favour of the predecessors of the respondent-petitioner and ultimately in name of the respondent-petitioner and at no stage since passing of the judgment dated 28.1.2003, the said judgment was questioned by the Forest Department, as such to claim that the said judgment, even if the same is against the department is void, cannot be countenanced. 27. Once a finding of fact has been recorded by the Revenue Appellate Authority that the land in question did not form part of the forest land, by merely relying on the notification issued under Section 4 and its implications in terms of Section 5, the appellant cannot seek reversal of finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority, inasmuch as, once it is held that the land does not form part of the forest land, the provisions of Section 4 and its implications in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 1953, would have no application, as by bare looking at the said notifications, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the land in question has been included in the notification or not. The said aspect, even otherwise is fortified from the submissions made by the appellant that notifications issued in the year 1957 and 1977 i.e. preliminary and the final notifications, does not indicate the khasra numbers involved. 28. It would be appropriate to quote the finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority with regard to the measurements and the fact about land in question being different from that, which could have been recorded in the name of Forest Department. 28. It would be appropriate to quote the finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority with regard to the measurements and the fact about land in question being different from that, which could have been recorded in the name of Forest Department. The finding reads as under: ^^,d nLrkost ou foHkkx us lgk;d ou cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh mn;iqj ckcr~ ou [k.M gjfu;k e; Mkxy xzke dk;k dk ÁLrqr fd;k gS] tks o"kZ 1977&78 dk gS] blesa tks jdck bl ou [k.M ds Cyksd ds vUnj vk;k gS] mldk jdck vafdr fd;k x;k gSA mDr ifji= ds vuqlkj fookfnr lkfcd vkjkth uacj 3103 dk dqy jdck 153 ch?kk 9 fcLok Fkk] ftlesa ou [k.M ds vUnj tks jdck vk;k gS] og 105 ch?kk 15 fcLok vafdr fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr o"kZ 1978 esa fcykuke Hkwfe dk ukekUrjdj.k ou foHkkx ds i{k esa tks [kksyk x;k Fkk] mldk ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 766 xzke dk;k gekjs lkeus ÁLrqr gqbZ gSA ml ukekUrjdj.k ds vuqlkj lkfcd vkjkth uacj 3103 dk 105 ch?kk 15 fcLok dk ukekUrjdj.k ou foHkkx ds uke [kksyk x;kA bl rjg bu fofHkUu nLrkostksa ls ;g fLFkfr lkeus vkrh gS fd lkfcd vkjkth [kljk uacj 3103 dk ÁkjEHk esa 153 ch?kk 9 fcLok jdck Fkk] ftlls vihykUV ds i{k esa 9 ch?kk Hkwfe dk ukekUrjdj.k [kksyk x;k FkkA ckn esa bldk jdck 132 ch?kk 9 fcLok jg x;k rFkk bldk cUnkscLr tc gqvk] ml le; ou cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh us ou lhek esa 105 ch?kk 15 fcLok Hkwfe ekuh FkhA ysfdu ukekUrjdj.k 766 esa 105 ch?kk 15 fcLok Hkwfe dk vey&njker fcykuke ls ou[k.M gjfu;k e; Mkxy ds uke ls fd;k x;k] tcfd bl ukekUrjdj.k dks Hkjrs le; [kljk uacj 3103 dk dqy jdck 115 ch?kk 9 fcLok crk;k x;k FkkA ;fn ge tekcUnh laor~ 2030 ls 34 dks ns[ksa] rks [kljk uacj 3103 tehu dk dqy jdck 132 ch?kk 9 fcLok fn[kk;k x;k gS vkSj blds fooj.k ds dksye esa ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 722 ls 9 ch?kk] 751 ls 4 ch?kk rFkk 752 ls 4 ch?kk dk ,yksVesUV gksuk vafdr gSA ;fn ge 132 ch?kk 9 fcLok esa ls mDr rhuksa ukekŒ dh dqy 17 ch?kk Hkwfe de djrs gS rks [kljk uacj 3103 esa 115 ch?kk 9 fcLok Hkwfe gh 'ks"k jg tkrh gSA vkSj ukekUdj.k la[;k 766 tks fnukad 23-10-1977 dks lgk;d Hkw&ÁcU/k vf/kdkjh mn;iqj }kjk Hkjk x;k gS] ds vuqlkj [kljk uacj 3103 dh 115 ch?kk 9 fcLok esa ls 105 ch?kk 16 fcLok Hkwfe ou foHkkx ds uke Lohd`r dh xbZ gSA blls Li"V gS fd o"kZ 1977 rd vihykUV ds i{k esa lkŒ[kŒ uacj 3103 esa ls vkoafVr dh xbZ Hkwfe ou foHkkx dh Hkwfe ls fcYdqy vyx gS] tks bu rhuksa nLrkostksa ls Hkyh&Hkkafr lkfcr gks tkrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa gky lsVyesUV dks vihykUV ds i{k esa fd;s x;s bUækt dks ;Fkkor j[kuk Fkk] tcfd gky jsdkMZ esa vihykUV ds uke dk vadu gVk fn;k x;k gS] tcfd fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds ,slk djus dk vf/kdkjh lsVyesUV foHkkx dks ugha FksA** 29. The above finding, based on documentary evidence available on record, has not even been assailed by the State either in reply to the writ petition or in the present appeal, except for placing reliance on the notifications under the Act of 1953. 30. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that the invalidity/voidness of the order of regularization and/or of the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority can be set up at any state, would have had same relevance, in case, it was established that the land in question indeed form part of the forest land, however, as a fact it has been found by the Revenue Appellate Authority that the land in question did not form part of the forest land, the plea sought to be raised, cannot be accepted unless the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was questioned by way of appropriate proceedings. 31. The plea raised that the learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that NOC was sought for Khasra No. 6466/1, whereas, the land of the respondent-petitioner is situated in Khasra No. 7172/6266 min, is without any basis, inasmuch as, the entire parcel of 9 Bigha, which was regularized in favour of Dhanraj, was recorded as Khasra No. 6466/1 and out of that the land, which was transferred to respondent-petitioner being a part of the said land, the same was recorded as 7172/6466 min and as such, there was apparently no confusion in this regard. 32. The further plea raised that no direction could have been granted regarding issuance of NOC by the learned Single Judge, also apparently has no basis, inasmuch as, once it was found by the learned Single Judge that the land in question is not part of the forest land, the locus-standi of the Forest Department on the basis of which the objection was raised, came to an end and no other objection was raised by the Forest Department in its communication to the District Magistrate and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard also has no basis. 33. In view of the above discussion, the judgment impugned does not call for any interference, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.