Allahabad High Court
Ramshobha vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 5 January, 2021
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3867 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ramshobha
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Prasad
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The proceedings of a suit registered as Suit No.1041/834/788/400 (Ramshobha Vs. Forest Department, Village-Kuldumari, Pargana-Singrauli) under Section 9/11 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 before the learned Forest Settlement Officer, Sonebhadra were rejected by order dated 03.01.2013. The petitioner took the said order in appeal registered as Misc. Civil Appeal No.63/2013 (Ramshobha Vs. Forest Department through Divisional Forest Officer, Renukoot, Sonebhadra). The appeal was rejected by the learned appellate court/learned Additional District Judge, Anpara situated at Obara, Sonebhadra on 30.01.2018.
The learned appellate court has set forth these findings. The dismissal of the claim of the petitioner by the Forest Officer on grounds of limitation has been upheld. Secondly, the matter in relation to the disputed plot had been decided by the competent authority in the earlier proceedings taken out under the same Act and the same will govern the fate of the case of the petitioner.
Heard Sri Dinesh Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.
I see merit in the submission of Sri Dinesh Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate court has clearly misdirected itself in law. The petitioner had taken various grounds for the delay in approaching the Forest Settlement Officer. These grounds were not considered and the courts below neglected to return findings on this issue as per law.
On the facts of the case, I find that the grounds for delay were wholly tenable. The explanation for delay and laches on part of the petitioner is sufficient. The delay was liable to be condoned. The delay is, accordingly, condoned.
The learned appellate court returned other findings which are in mutual contradiction. The appellate court found that the petitioner was not a party in the earlier proceedings. On the other hand, reliance was placed on the judgement in the same proceedings to which the petitioner was not a party to non-suit the petitioner. These findings vitiate the impugned judgment of the appellate court.
The narrative shall now be reinforced by authorities in point. This Court in Hardayal Vs. District Judge and others, reported at 1972 ALJ 649 upon comprehensive consideration of the scheme of the Forest Act, 1927, held as under:
"5. Section 6 of the Forest Act nowhere lays down a period of limitation for making a claim in respect of land included in a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Section 6(c) merely requires that while issuing this proclamation, the Forest Settlement Officer shall fix in a period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation, requiring every person claiming any right, to present to the Forest Settlement Officer a written notice specifying or to appear before him stating the nature of his rights. According to this section the period within which a written notice of a claim or an oral claim is to be made, it to be fixed by the Forest Settlement Officer and that this period cannot be less than three months from the date of the proclamation. There is nothing on the record of this petition to show what period was indicated by the Forest Settlement Officer in the proclamation issued by him. It is apparent that the period for making a claim fixed in a proclamation issued under Section 6 cannot be equated with the period of limitation fixed under the Limitation Act."
The law laid down by this Court in Hardayal (supra) is applicable to all the facts of this case.
The impugned order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the learned Forest Settlement Officer, Sonebhadra in Suit No.1041/834 (Ramshobha Vs. Forest Department, Village-Kuldumari, Pargana-Singrauli) and the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned appellate court / learned Additional District Judge, Anpara situated at Obra, Sonebhadra in Misc. Civil Appeal No.63 of 2013 (Ramshobha Vs. Forest Department through Divisional Forest Officer, Renukoot, Sonebhadra) are quashed.
The matter is remitted to the respondent No.2/learned Forest Settlement Officer, Sonebhadra for fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law.
The petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021
saqlain
