Allahabad High Court
Div.Forest Officer South And Others vs Pohran And Others on 29 July, 2025
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43803
Court No. - 3
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 421 of 1993
Appellant :- Div.Forest Officer South And Others
Respondent :- Pohran And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Smriti
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
List has been revised. No one appears for the respondents.
Heard the Standing Counsel for the appellants.
This is a defendants' appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1985 passed by the Munsif, Lakhimpur Kheri decreeing Original Suit No. 301 of 1984 and also the judgment and decree dated 18.9.1991 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kheri in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1985 affirming the decree passed by the trial court.
The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs - respondents instituted Original Suit No. 301 of 1984 against the defendants - appellants praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants - appellants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs - respondents over Plot No. 119 (area 1.25 acres) situated in Village Magahi, Pargana Kasta, District Kheri. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be the owner of the suit property and their name have been recorded as such in the consolidation records. The defendants - appellants contested the aforesaid suit stating that the suit property had been notified as reserved forest area under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act').
On the pleadings of the parties, two main issues were framed by the trial court : -
"1. Whether the plaintiff is the bhumidhar in possession of the disputed land?
2. Whether the defendants have legally acquired the disputed land, if so its effect?"
The trial court after considering the evidence on record, especially C.H. Form - 41, held that Plot Nos. 117 and 119, both had been carved out from Plot No. 162M. An area of 37.34 acres in Plot No. 162M was re-numbered as Plot No. 117 during the consolidation proceedings and the remaining area of 1.25 acres in Plot No. 162M had been re-numbered as Plot No. 119. The plaintiffs were the owner of 1.25 acres in Plot No. 162M. After considering the documentary evidence on record, especially the notification issued under Section 20 of the Act which disclosed that 37.34 acres in Plot No. 162M had been notified as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Act, the trial court recorded a finding that Plot No. 117 had been notified under Section 20 of the Act and Plot No. 119 was not included in the notification issued under Section 20 of the Act. On the aforesaid findings, the trial court held that as the plaintiffs were recorded Bhumidhar of the suit property, therefore, they were entitled to an injunction as prayed by them. Consequently, the suit was decreed and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over Plot No. 119.
Against the aforesaid decree, the defendants filed Civil Appeal No. 37 of 1985 which was dismissed by the lower appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.9.1991. Hence, the present second appeal.
The following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court in the present second appeal : -
"1. As to whether the entries made during consolidation proceedings would override the notification issued under Section 20 of the Forest Act, 1927.
2. As to whether the acquisition of the disputed property would extinguish the rights of the plaintiff- respondents even if the disputed plot numbers are not specifically mentioned in the notification.
3. As to whether the suit filed before the civil court is barred in view of Section 27-A of the Indian Forest Act,1927."
It has been argued by the Standing Counsel that the suit was barred under Section 27-A of the Act and the notification under Section 20 of the Act could not have been challenged before the civil court. It has been argued that for the aforesaid reason, the judgments and decrees of the courts below are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.
I have considered the submission of the Standing Counsel.
A perusal of the records available with this Court and the judgments of the courts below show that the legality or the correctness of the notification issued under Section 20 of the Act was not under consideration of the courts below. The plea of the plaintiffs was that Plot No. 119 of which they were the recorded Bhumidhar had not been acquired or notified under Section 20 of the Act. The issue before the courts below was regarding the contents and the extent of the notification issued under Section 20 of the Act. It is not disputed that Plot No. 162 was a Minzumla number and an area of 37.34 acres in Plot No. 162M was notified under Section 20 of the Act. The remaining area of 1.25 acres in Plot No. 162M was not included in the notification issued under Section 20 of the Act. The area which was notified under Section 20 of the Act was included in Plot No. 117 during the consolidation operations and the area of 1.25 acres which was not included in the notification issued under Section 20 of the Act was re-numbered as Plot No. 119. In the consolidation records, the plaintiffs were recorded as Bhumidhar of Plot No. 119. Apparently, only Plot No. 117 which was carved out from 37.34 acres of Plot No. 162M was notified as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Act and not Plot No. 119.
In view of the aforesaid, the legality of the notification under Section 20 of the Act was not under consideration by the civil courts and Original Suit No. 301 of 1984 was not barred under Section 27-A of the Act. Similarly, there is nothing on record to show that the land could have been or was acquired by the Forest Department or any appropriate Government without any notification issued under Section 20 of the Act declaring Plot No. 119 as reserved forest.
Thus, I do not find any error in the judgments of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2025
Satyam
