State Of U.P. Varanasi vs X A.D.J. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7944 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11752 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Varanasi
 
Respondent :- X A.D.J. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri I.B. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent no.3, though, the notices were issued.

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 26.07.1991 passed by respondent no.2- Forest Settlement Officer as well as order dated 23.09.2000 passed by the respondent no.1-Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi.

One Ram Janam who belongs to Musahar caste (Scheduled Tribes) had moved an application for exempting the land to the extent of 1 beegha, 16 biswas and 15 dhur from the land of forest. By the order of Forest Settlement Officer dated 26.07.1991, the said application moved by the respondent no.3 was allowed.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-State through Divisional Forest Officer filed an appeal before the Xth Additional District Judge, Varanasi. The Court below vide order dated 23.09.2000 dismissed the appeal, hence the present writ petition.

Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was made on 24.09.1954, thereafter notification under Section 6 was made.

No objections were filed by the respondent no.3 and after a delay of almost 29 years, the application was moved for exempting the land of the respondent no.3 from the land of the forest.

The Forest Settlement Officer had framed six issues and held that the benefit of section 5 was to be extended to the contesting respondents as they belong to Musahar caste and they had been cultivating the land prior to 1950 when the land was under the control of Kashi Naresh.

Learned Standing Counsel contended that the benefit of Section 5 could not have been extended and merely on the report of the Surveyor and the Amin of the years 1988 and 1991, the benefit has been passed on respondent no.3.

I have heard learned Standing Counsel and perused the material on record.

It is not in dispute that respondent no.3 belongs to Musahar caste. He is in possession over the land prior to 1950. The said fact has come from the inspection report of the Surveyor dated 24.07.1988 and the Amin report dated 07.01.1991. The stand taken by the Forest Department that the case of the respondent no.3 is barred by provision of res judicata was turned down by the Settlement Forest Officer, wherein a finding was recorded that earlier proceeding which was initiated against one Sahdeo in Case No.140 of 1974, Ram Janam was not a party. The said finding has been affirmed in the appeal by the lower appellate Court. Moreover, the delay has been condoned by both the Courts below after recording categorical findings.

From the perusal of the judgments of the lower appellate Courts, I find that no case for interference is made out.

Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 20.3.2023

SK Goswami