Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2552 (ALL)

Rajeev Singh v. State Of U. P.

2024-12-19

SHEKHAR B.SARAF, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vipin Chandra Dixit, JJ. 1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the orders dated 6.2.2023, 13.2.2023 and 22.2.2023 passed by Forest Settlement Officer, Bijnor/respondent no.2 in Case No. 02 of 2022 under Section 11 (2) of Indian Forest Act . 2. Brief facts of the case are that Khasra No.8 was recorded in the name of Raja Harishchandra in basic year Khatauni 1356- 1357 F and thereafter name of Kumar Chandra Bhan Singh, father of petitioner was recorded in Khatauni 1358-1359 F. The name of mother of petitioner Risal Manjari Devi, wife of Late Chandra Bhan Singh was recorded in Khatauni of 1372-74 F by the order of Forest Settlement Officer. The land was excluded from reserved forest by the order of Forest Settlement Officer dated 28.5.1965 passed in Case No. 680 of 1965 under Section 11(2) of Forest Act. The State Government had never issued any notification under Section 4 of Forest Act declaring the said land as reserved forest but entries were made by Sub Divisional Magistrate reserving the land as ‘Jungle Jhadi’. 3. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 11(2) of Forest Act challenging the illegal entries made in khatauni and case was registered as Case No. 02 of 2022. The Forest Settlement Officer, Bijnor after considering the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as objection of DGC(Revenue) had passed a detailed order in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and order dated 7.12.2022 expunging the “jungle jhadi” and recorded the name of the petitioner. The finding has been recorded by the Forest Settlement Officer, Bijnor that entries of “jungle-jhadi” in revenue record is without any basis and direction was issued to record the name of petitioner being legal heir of Rani Risal Manjari Devi. The order dated 7.12.2022 was passed on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the learned District Government Counsel(Revenue). 4. The District Government Counsel(Revenue) had moved restoration application on 21.12.2023 for recall of order dated 7.12.2022. The Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated 13.2.2023 had recalled the order dated 7.12.2022 and thereafter dismissed the case of the petitioner vide order dated 22.2.2023 which are impugned in the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents and perused the record. 6. The Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated 13.2.2023 had recalled the order dated 7.12.2022 and thereafter dismissed the case of the petitioner vide order dated 22.2.2023 which are impugned in the present writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents and perused the record. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that khasra no.8 was recorded in the name of mother of petitioner namely Risal Manjari Devi and after her death the petitioner was recorded in revenue record and he has possession over the same. The Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated 28.5.1965 passed in case no. 680 of 1965 under Section 11(2) of Forest Act had excluded the land from the limits of proposed forest. The case filed by petitioner under Section 11(2) of Forest Act being Case No. 02 of 2022 was allowed by the Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated 7.12.2022 and the name of petitioner was directed to be recorded as legal heir of Rani Risal Manjari Devi. The order dated 7.12.2022 was recalled by Forest Settlement Officer vide order dated 13.2.2023 and case no. 02 of 2023 was dismissed vide order dated 22.2.2023. The order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer dated 13.2.2023 and 22.2.2023 are without jurisdiction, as the Forest Settlement Officer has no power under the law to review his own order. 7. It is further submitted that order dated 7.12.2022 was passed on merits and the appeal is provided under Section 17 of the Forest Act against any order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer under Sections 11,12,15 and 16. The only remedy available to the respondents was to file an appeal before the District Judge against the order dated 7.12.2022. The orders impugned passed by Forest Settlement Officer are without jurisdiction as he has no power to review his own order. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents has submitted that jungle-jhadi’ was recorded in revenue record the land was reserved for forest and the petitioner has no right or title of disputed land. The orders dated 13.2.2023 and 22.2.2023 have rightly been passed and there is no illegality in any manner. No ground for interference is made out and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The orders dated 13.2.2023 and 22.2.2023 have rightly been passed and there is no illegality in any manner. No ground for interference is made out and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is admitted fact that the order dated 7.12.2022 was passed by respondent no.2 under Section 11(2) of Forest Act after hearing counsel for the parties on merits. The respondent no.2 after considering the enquiry report submitted by Tehsildar, Nagina dated 16.4.2018 and report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nagina dated 15.3.2022, had passed a very detailed order on merits. The order dated 7.12.2022 was passed on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The respondent no.2 had erred in recalling the order dated 7.12.2022 by the impugned order dated 13.2.2023, which is not permissible under the law, as there is no provision of review under the Forest Act. 11. The law has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Hon’ble Court in series of cases that quasi judicial authority has no power to review its own order in absence of any power of review conferred under the Statute. 12. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2016 (11) ADJ 749 the Court has held that quasi judicial authority has no power of review in absence of any specific provision under the Statute. The relevant paragraph 10 and 11 are quoted below:- “10. It can not be disputed that the impugned order has been passed by a quasi judicial authority and such authority cannot review its order in absence of power of Review conferred under the Statute. 11. The power of review of quasi judicial authority in absence of specific provision under the statute has been dealt with in several cases of this Court as well as by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 525 has held that unless power of Review is expressly conferred on the authority by any statute under which it derives its' jurisdiction, the authority concerned has no power to Review its' earlier order. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) and Ors. (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 525 has held that unless power of Review is expressly conferred on the authority by any statute under which it derives its' jurisdiction, the authority concerned has no power to Review its' earlier order. In Para-11 of the aforesaid judgment following observations has been made: A quasi-judicial authority cannot review its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice-Chancellor in considering the question of approval of an order of dismissed of the Principal, acts as a quasi-judicial authority. The provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 or of the Statutes of the University do not confer any power of review on the Vice- Chancellor. In the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice- Chancellor acted wholly without jurisdiction in reviewing, his/her earlier order. The review order of the Vice-Chancellor was, therefore, a nullity.” 13. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shivraji and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1997 RD 562 has held that the Consolidation authorities have no power of review. The relevant paragraph 35 is quoted below: “35. Coming to the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is our considered view that the consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding a revision petition exercises judicial or quasi judicial power and, therefore, his order is final subject to any power of appeal or revision vested in superior authority under the Act. The consolidation authorities, particularly the Deputy Director of Consolidation, is not vested with any power of review of his order and, therefore, cannot re-open any proceeding and cannot review or revise his earlier order. However, as a judicial or quasi judicial authority he has the power to correct any clerical mistake/arithmetical error manifest error in his order in exercise of his inherent power as a tribunal.” 14. Similar view has been taken in Smt. Shivanit Chaurasia & Another vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2024 AIR(All) 180 . The relevant paragraph ‘7’ is quoted below:- “7. Similar view has been taken in Smt. Shivanit Chaurasia & Another vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2024 AIR(All) 180 . The relevant paragraph ‘7’ is quoted below:- “7. From an overview of the judgments cited above, it is clear that the Collector (Stamp) cannot recall and/or review his own order as no such power has been conferred under Section 47-A of the Act. A quasi-judicial authority is limited in its functionality in as much as it has to act within the four corners of the statute from which it derives its authority. If the statute does not provide for a particular act, the same cannot be undertaken by that authority. Any such action taken de hors the legislative intent would amount to an overreach and beyond the power of the said authority”. 15. It is well settled law that quasi judicial authority has no right or authority to review its own order unless it is expressly conferred by the Statute itself. In the present case, there is no provision of review under the Forest Act. The orders impugned dated 6.2.2023, 13.2.2023 and 22.2.2023 that are passed by respondent no.2 reviewing its own order is without jurisdiction. The impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 16. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 6.2.203, 13.2.2-23 and 22.2.2023 passed by respondent no.2 are quashed and set aside. 17. However, it is open for the State respondents to challenge the order dated 7.12.2022 passed by respondent no.2 before the appropriate forum under Section 17 of Forest Act. If any appeal is filed by the State respondent under Section 17 of the Forest Act within a period of two months from date, the same shall be decided on merits without raising any objection regarding limitation.