Asst.D.D.C.Lko.Camp At Kheri vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

3. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the petitioners are that Gata No. 138B having an area of 21.42 acres was recorded as "Jhadi - Jangal" and .82 acres was recorded as "Nala" and .40 acres was recorded as "Talab", total of 22.64 acres land of Gata No. 138B, situated at Village - Burhanpur, was recorded as "Deegar" land and on abolition of 2 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 Zamindari, the aforesaid land vested in the State Government free of all encumbrances.

4. It is stated that, as per the notification, under Section 117 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 852 acres of land of the aforesaid village were declared as Gaon Sabha land. On 11.04.1961, a notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, was issued for declaration of the aforesaid land as "reserve forest". After inviting objections notification under Section 20 was issued on 08.08.1963, declaring that 60.20 acres of Gata No. 138, total land of 444.62 acres, situated in the aforesaid village was declared as "reserve forest" which was subsequently, notified in the U.P. Gazette.

5. It is after issuance of the aforesaid notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, by means of sale deeds dated 04.06.1965,

30.06.1965, 29.12.1965, 30.12.1965 and 28.08.1965, pertaining to Gata No. 138 were executed in favour of private respondents and during consolidation operations in the said village, which had commenced in 1969, the private respondents had filed an application under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming rights in the aforesaid land and by means of order dated 08.07.1974, the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the private respondents.

6. Against order dated 08.07.1974, an appeal was filed under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was also dismissed on 30.11.1974 and further revision was preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which was also dismissed on 17.04.1978. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the revenue authorities, private respondents preferred writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 1396 of 1978 - Gernail Singh and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed on 30.07.1980 and the matter was remanded and restored to the revisional authority to decide the same in the light of observations made therein.

7. In the writ petition it was the contention of the petitioners therein that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not passed on any survey or measurement while and that land of the petitioners was not included in the notification issued by the Forest Department under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act. The High 3 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 Court was of the view that there was dispute with regard to the boundaries of the disputed land and same has to be decided on the basis of evidence on record and if necessary by clearly finding out location of the said plot in view of the report given by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which supported the case of the respondents.

8. Accordingly, the High Court while allowing the writ petition held that there has to be clear finding with regard to the location of the disputed land and in case land is found to be included in the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, then it would be a reserve forest area and in case it cannot be demonstrated that the disputed land lies within the confines of the aforesaid notifications, the respondents would be entitled to succeed.

9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the remand proceedings further remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by means of an order dated 10.10.1984. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) conducted a spot inspection and also appointed an Advocate Commissioner who had submitted his report. He has considered the fact that as per revenue records pertaining to 1359 Fasli, in the khatauni with regard to Gata No. 138 area 55.67 acres was recorded in the name of Keshav Charan Das and Mohan Lal S/o Keshav Charan Das and in Khata No. 59 Gata No. 138m area 3.40 acres was recorded in the name of one Saraswati Prasad in the category '4s'. Before the appellate authority, it was contended that Keshav Charan Das, Mohan Lal, and Saraswati Prasad had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellants, which was filed in the said proceedings, and were ascertaining their rights over the said land on the basis of the sale deed. On behalf of appellants it was also contended that one of the essential condition as per Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act is that the land on which agriculture was conducted cannot be declared to be "reserve forest" and it was further stated that in case any land is not included in notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, which is included in notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, still such inclusion of the land would be arbitrary and such land would not vest in the forest department as "reserve forest". On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the disputed land was included in the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act and therefore, private respondents do not have any right, title, or 4 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 interest in the said land from the date of the said notification, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10. With regard jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to hear the said appeal, which was raised by the petitioners, a finding was returned that in case the said land is included in the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, then certainly the consolidation authority would not have any authority to hear the said case. However, in case the said land does not form part of the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act and is an agricultural land, then certainly they would have jurisdiction to hear the dispute pertaining to the said land.

11. While allowing the appeal of the private respondents, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), while considering the revenue records, held that from perusal of the Khatauni of Fasli year of 1363, 1366 and 1368, it was clear that Saraswati Prasad was recorded Bhoomidhar of the said land while, with regard to Khatauni for Fasli year 1371 to 1373 as well as 1374 wherein name of Keshav Charan Das and others is recorded as bhoomidhar and they have transferred the land in favour of the private respondents by means of registered sale deed. He further finds that from perusal of the revenue records it was found that the land was never recorded as Gaon Sabha land.

12. With regard to the location of the disputed land, he found that notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act pertains to a land to the east side of which, there is a road going towards Nighasan, Lakhimpur. To the east of the road is the farm of the sons of Abdul Salam. Further east in the same direction is the river Chauka and the Majra Government Farm. On the west side of the land is the river Junai, and further in the west direction is the boundary of Village - Lilauthi. On the south, there is river Junai. it shares its North-West and North-East boundary with the village of Sanda and the Village of Bidura, respectively. He further noted that the land is nowhere close to the land notified by the Forest Department. Further, he found that on the spot inspection of the said land, agricultural activities were being conducted and, in the aforesaid circumstances, allowed the appeal in favour of the private respondents. 5 WRIB No. 322 of 1999

13. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 30.06.1989, had preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was also rejected by means of an order dated 06.06.1998. While rejecting the revision of the petitioners, it was noticed that in the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, no gata number was mentioned and the area was described only by boundaries. He further considered the findings returned by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) relied upon the Advocate Commissioner's report which was ordered at the revisional stage to be conducted by an independent person, who had measured the disputed land and found that the land notified by the Forest Department is no where close to the disputed property, and in the aforesaid circumstances, rejected the revision.

14. The petitioners in the writ petition before this Court, while assailing both orders dated 30.06.1989 and 06.06.1998, have reiterated the arguments which were raised before the revenue authorities. It was contended that the findings returned by the revenue authorities were perverse, illegal, and arbitrary and deserve to be set aside, inasmuch as the disputed land, which is on Gata No. 138, is within the boundaries as notified under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act. Apart from this it was contended that once notification has been issued under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, the Consolidation authorities do not have any right or jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said controversy, and therefore the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.

15. The present writ petition has been vehemently opposed by the respondents. They have stated that before the revenue authorities' land was inspected on three occasions by the Advocate Commissioners appointed by the Court, as well as authorities themselves, and all the consolidation authorities have returned concurrent findings of fact in favour of the private respondents. It was submitted that from the material on record, it was clearly brought forth that, as per revenue records, the disputed land was recorded in the name of Saraswati Prasad, Keshav Charan Dev etc. from whom, by means of registered sale deeds, the private respondents had purchased the said land, and even their names were duly mutated in the revenue records. 6 WRIB No. 322 of 1999

16. It was further submitted that clear finding has been recorded on the basis of material on record that the said land is not included in the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act and therefore, disputed land is not "reserve forest" area and private respondents continued to have right, title and interest in the said land which has not been taken away by the notifications issued by the State Government and in the aforesaid circumstances, pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

17. It was stated that even on fact and law, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and therefore pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

19. The dispute in the present case pertains to the land situated at Gata No. 138, in Village - Burhanpur, District - Lakhimpur Kheri which has been declared "reserve forest" under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. This aspect of the matter is seriously disputed and bone of contention between the parties. In the previous round of litigation, which had culminated in an order dated 03.07.1980, in writ petition no. 1396 of 1978, this aspect was noticed and this Court was of the considered view that unless land is surveyed and measured, no finding can be returned with regard to the location of the said land as to whether it falls within the boundaries as per notification dated 11.04.1961, issued under Section 4 and notification dated 08.08.1963 issued under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act.

20. It is in the remand proceedings that this aspect of the matter was the central point of adjudication by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both the authorities have returned concurrent findings of fact that the land existed in the name of the predecessor in interest of the private respondents, from whom they have purchased the land by means of a registered sale deed between

04.06.1965 and 26.08.1965.

21. The first issue pertains to the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to adjudicate the present dispute, especially when it is alleged that the land is covered under the notification issued under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied 7 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Joginder Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, AWC 141 All. This Court had noticed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, 1996 ALL LJ 1393.

22. In para 10 the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (supra) has observed as under :- "10. It is thus obvious that the Forest Settlement Officer has the power of a civil court and his order is subject to appeal and finally revision before the State Government. The Act is a complete code in itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring and notifying a reserve forest. Once a notification under Section 20 of the Act declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person come to an end and are no longer available. the notification is binding on the Consolidation Authorities in the same way as a decree of the civil court. the respondents could very well file objections and claims including objection regarding the nature of the land before the Forest Settlement Officer. They did not file any objection or claim before the authorities in the proceedings under the Act. After the notification under Section 20 of the Act, the respondents could not have raised any objections qua the said notification before the Consolidation Authorities. The Consolidation Authorities were bound by the notification which had achieved finality."

23. Accordingly, there is no doubt that in a situation where there is any dispute with regard to location of the land and in case said land is included in the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, then the dispute can be decided under Section 11 of the Indian Forest Act by the Forest Settlement Officer who assume powers of a Civil Court and in such a situation the Consolidation authorities would not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute.

24. The Court's view in the aforesaid situation is stated in para 21 of the judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35386 of 2001 - Jogender Singh and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and Others, 2002 (1) AWC 141, is quoted herein below :- 8 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 "21. In view of the above discussion with regard to question No. 1, it is held that the consolidation courts cannot entertain a claim with regard to land which is covered by notification under Section 20 of Forest Act, 1927, and with regard to question No. 2 it is held that the Section 27A of the Forest Act creates express bar for adjudication of claim regarding reserved forest in any subsequent proceedings."

25. Therefore, in case there is any dispute that the land is covered under the notification issued by the Forest Department, then there is no doubt that the Consolidation authorities/Courts would have no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute, but in case it is demonstrated by the tenure holders that the land is not covered under the notification issued under the Indian Forest Act, then certainly the dispute would be cognizable by the Consolidation authorities.

26. In the present case, the issue with regard to the location of the said land is itself disputed, where the State contends that the plot no. 138 is included in the notification issued under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, while on the other hand, private respondents contend otherwise, and therefore, the consolidation authorities do have the right to consider and return a finding with regard to the location of the disputed land to determine their jurisdiction. Even otherwise, present proceedings have been remanded by the High Court in its judgment and order dated

30.07.1980 and no objection was raised with regard to jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities before the High Court, accordingly, it is for the reasons aforesaid, this Court do not find any merit in the ground raised by the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities, which is accordingly rejected.

27. It was further contended on behalf of petitioners that once notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act has been issued, no right can accrue to any individual over the said land, but, considering the arguments of the petitioners the issue which falls for consideration is as to whether the disputed land falls within the boundaries as described in the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act.

28. There is sufficient material available on record that deserves to be considered by this Court to answer the question raised by the petitioners. Firstly, this Court finds that the Assistant Consolidation Officer has 9 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 submitted a spot inspection report on the direction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 10.03.1981. A detailed site map was also prepared and submitted by him, and from the aforesaid map it was found that the disputed land was at a distance from the forest land which was notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act and not included in the said notification.

29. The second spot inspection report is dated 08.05.1981, which was conducted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court on 30.07.1980. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act and concluded that the disputed land does not fall within the ambit of land mentioned in Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. He has dealt with the boundaries described in the notification and also considered the boundaries existing at ground level and found that Gata No. 138 is away from the land included in the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act.

30. Third spot inspection report was submitted by one Virendra Singh, Advocate Commissioner, who conducted inspection on the direction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and submitted his report on

24.06.1985. He conducted the inspection on 15.06.1985 in the presence of learned counsel for the private respondents, Government Advocate, and officers of the Forest Department. On the basis of spot inspection, he has prepared a detailed map and even considered the fixed points that were installed during consolidation operations and tallied them with the boundaries given in the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. He clearly and exactly found the location of plot no. 138, adjacent to which on the western side is the Lakhimpur-Nighasn road. He found that on the eastern corner of the disputed property is the Junai river, as well as Pakka road connecting the old bridge. He found the area of plot no. 138 was 30.25 acres whose possession was with Jarnail Singh, Sukhvendra Singh, Darshan Singh, Laskar Singh, Bela Singh, Sheel Kaur, Vedant Kaur, Vishnu Singh, Baldev Singh, and their crops were standing on the fields, and on some portion, sugar cane and corn were also sown. He found that the land of Gata No. 138 is separate and distinct and not included in the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, where the boundary described was the State Mazra Farm. 10 WRIB No. 322 of 1999

31. Accordingly, all three inspection reports have been submitted at various points in time, and there is no objection to the aforesaid reports. Lastly, the Advocate Commissioner had conducted a spot inspection in the presence of various officials. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation), as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation, have relied upon the aforesaid inspection reports, which returned findings that Gata No. 138 is not included in the notification issued by the State Government and therefore would not be included in the "reserve forest".

32. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that this Court finds force in the contention of the respondents who have relied upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court stating that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the revenue authorities are not to be altered unless and until said findings are perverse or suffer from some material irregularity which renders the finding arbitrary or illegal.

33. The petitioners could not assail the aforesaid spot inspection reports on the basis of any cogent material or evidence. They could not place before this Court any other material or evidence in support of their contention that the disputed land lies within the boundaries described in the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, and therefore, this Court finds itself unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners. There are concurrent findings of fact. Hence, the scope of interference by this Court is minimal unless there is a grave error. This Court has not been able to find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities and, therefore, has no hesitation in affirming the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation, and accordingly, there is no occasion to interfere in the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

34. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. September 12, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the petitioners are that Gata No. 138B having an area of 21.42 acres was recorded as "Jhadi - Jangal" and .82 acres was recorded as "Nala" and .40 acres was recorded as "Talab", total of 22.64 acres land of Gata No. 138B, situated at Village - Burhanpur, was recorded as "Deegar" land and on abolition of 2 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 Zamindari, the aforesaid land vested in the State Government free of all encumbrances.

4. It is stated that, as per the notification, under Section 117 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 852 acres of land of the aforesaid village were declared as Gaon Sabha land. On 11.04.1961, a notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, was issued for declaration of the aforesaid land as "reserve forest". After inviting objections notification under Section 20 was issued on 08.08.1963, declaring that 60.20 acres of Gata No. 138, total land of 444.62 acres, situated in the aforesaid village was declared as "reserve forest" which was subsequently, notified in the U.P. Gazette.

5. It is after issuance of the aforesaid notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, by means of sale deeds dated 04.06.1965,

30.06.1965, 29.12.1965, 30.12.1965 and 28.08.1965, pertaining to Gata No. 138 were executed in favour of private respondents and during consolidation operations in the said village, which had commenced in 1969, the private respondents had filed an application under Section 9A(2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming rights in the aforesaid land and by means of order dated 08.07.1974, the Consolidation Officer rejected the claim of the private respondents.

6. Against order dated 08.07.1974, an appeal was filed under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which was also dismissed on 30.11.1974 and further revision was preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act, 1953 which was also dismissed on 17.04.1978. Against the aforesaid orders passed by the revenue authorities, private respondents preferred writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 1396 of 1978 - Gernail Singh and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was allowed on 30.07.1980 and the matter was remanded and restored to the revisional authority to decide the same in the light of observations made therein.

7. In the writ petition it was the contention of the petitioners therein that the finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not passed on any survey or measurement while and that land of the petitioners was not included in the notification issued by the Forest Department under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act. The High 3 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 Court was of the view that there was dispute with regard to the boundaries of the disputed land and same has to be decided on the basis of evidence on record and if necessary by clearly finding out location of the said plot in view of the report given by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which supported the case of the respondents.

8. Accordingly, the High Court while allowing the writ petition held that there has to be clear finding with regard to the location of the disputed land and in case land is found to be included in the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, then it would be a reserve forest area and in case it cannot be demonstrated that the disputed land lies within the confines of the aforesaid notifications, the respondents would be entitled to succeed.

9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in the remand proceedings further remanded the matter to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by means of an order dated 10.10.1984. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) conducted a spot inspection and also appointed an Advocate Commissioner who had submitted his report. He has considered the fact that as per revenue records pertaining to 1359 Fasli, in the khatauni with regard to Gata No. 138 area 55.67 acres was recorded in the name of Keshav Charan Das and Mohan Lal S/o Keshav Charan Das and in Khata No. 59 Gata No. 138m area 3.40 acres was recorded in the name of one Saraswati Prasad in the category '4s'. Before the appellate authority, it was contended that Keshav Charan Das, Mohan Lal, and Saraswati Prasad had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellants, which was filed in the said proceedings, and were ascertaining their rights over the said land on the basis of the sale deed. On behalf of appellants it was also contended that one of the essential condition as per Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act is that the land on which agriculture was conducted cannot be declared to be "reserve forest" and it was further stated that in case any land is not included in notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, which is included in notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, still such inclusion of the land would be arbitrary and such land would not vest in the forest department as "reserve forest". On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that the disputed land was included in the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act and therefore, private respondents do not have any right, title, or 4 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 interest in the said land from the date of the said notification, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

10. With regard jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to hear the said appeal, which was raised by the petitioners, a finding was returned that in case the said land is included in the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, then certainly the consolidation authority would not have any authority to hear the said case. However, in case the said land does not form part of the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act and is an agricultural land, then certainly they would have jurisdiction to hear the dispute pertaining to the said land.

11. While allowing the appeal of the private respondents, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), while considering the revenue records, held that from perusal of the Khatauni of Fasli year of 1363, 1366 and 1368, it was clear that Saraswati Prasad was recorded Bhoomidhar of the said land while, with regard to Khatauni for Fasli year 1371 to 1373 as well as 1374 wherein name of Keshav Charan Das and others is recorded as bhoomidhar and they have transferred the land in favour of the private respondents by means of registered sale deed. He further finds that from perusal of the revenue records it was found that the land was never recorded as Gaon Sabha land.

12. With regard to the location of the disputed land, he found that notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act pertains to a land to the east side of which, there is a road going towards Nighasan, Lakhimpur. To the east of the road is the farm of the sons of Abdul Salam. Further east in the same direction is the river Chauka and the Majra Government Farm. On the west side of the land is the river Junai, and further in the west direction is the boundary of Village - Lilauthi. On the south, there is river Junai. it shares its North-West and North-East boundary with the village of Sanda and the Village of Bidura, respectively. He further noted that the land is nowhere close to the land notified by the Forest Department. Further, he found that on the spot inspection of the said land, agricultural activities were being conducted and, in the aforesaid circumstances, allowed the appeal in favour of the private respondents. 5 WRIB No. 322 of 1999

13. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 30.06.1989, had preferred revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was also rejected by means of an order dated 06.06.1998. While rejecting the revision of the petitioners, it was noticed that in the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, no gata number was mentioned and the area was described only by boundaries. He further considered the findings returned by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) relied upon the Advocate Commissioner's report which was ordered at the revisional stage to be conducted by an independent person, who had measured the disputed land and found that the land notified by the Forest Department is no where close to the disputed property, and in the aforesaid circumstances, rejected the revision.

14. The petitioners in the writ petition before this Court, while assailing both orders dated 30.06.1989 and 06.06.1998, have reiterated the arguments which were raised before the revenue authorities. It was contended that the findings returned by the revenue authorities were perverse, illegal, and arbitrary and deserve to be set aside, inasmuch as the disputed land, which is on Gata No. 138, is within the boundaries as notified under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act. Apart from this it was contended that once notification has been issued under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, the Consolidation authorities do not have any right or jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said controversy, and therefore the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.

15. The present writ petition has been vehemently opposed by the respondents. They have stated that before the revenue authorities' land was inspected on three occasions by the Advocate Commissioners appointed by the Court, as well as authorities themselves, and all the consolidation authorities have returned concurrent findings of fact in favour of the private respondents. It was submitted that from the material on record, it was clearly brought forth that, as per revenue records, the disputed land was recorded in the name of Saraswati Prasad, Keshav Charan Dev etc. from whom, by means of registered sale deeds, the private respondents had purchased the said land, and even their names were duly mutated in the revenue records. 6 WRIB No. 322 of 1999

16. It was further submitted that clear finding has been recorded on the basis of material on record that the said land is not included in the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act and therefore, disputed land is not "reserve forest" area and private respondents continued to have right, title and interest in the said land which has not been taken away by the notifications issued by the State Government and in the aforesaid circumstances, pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

17. It was stated that even on fact and law, there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and therefore pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

19. The dispute in the present case pertains to the land situated at Gata No. 138, in Village - Burhanpur, District - Lakhimpur Kheri which has been declared "reserve forest" under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act. This aspect of the matter is seriously disputed and bone of contention between the parties. In the previous round of litigation, which had culminated in an order dated 03.07.1980, in writ petition no. 1396 of 1978, this aspect was noticed and this Court was of the considered view that unless land is surveyed and measured, no finding can be returned with regard to the location of the said land as to whether it falls within the boundaries as per notification dated 11.04.1961, issued under Section 4 and notification dated 08.08.1963 issued under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act.

20. It is in the remand proceedings that this aspect of the matter was the central point of adjudication by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation. Both the authorities have returned concurrent findings of fact that the land existed in the name of the predecessor in interest of the private respondents, from whom they have purchased the land by means of a registered sale deed between

04.06.1965 and 26.08.1965.

21. The first issue pertains to the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to adjudicate the present dispute, especially when it is alleged that the land is covered under the notification issued under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied 7 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Joginder Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, AWC 141 All. This Court had noticed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, 1996 ALL LJ 1393.

22. In para 10 the Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (supra) has observed as under :- "10. It is thus obvious that the Forest Settlement Officer has the power of a civil court and his order is subject to appeal and finally revision before the State Government. The Act is a complete code in itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring and notifying a reserve forest. Once a notification under Section 20 of the Act declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person come to an end and are no longer available. the notification is binding on the Consolidation Authorities in the same way as a decree of the civil court. the respondents could very well file objections and claims including objection regarding the nature of the land before the Forest Settlement Officer. They did not file any objection or claim before the authorities in the proceedings under the Act. After the notification under Section 20 of the Act, the respondents could not have raised any objections qua the said notification before the Consolidation Authorities. The Consolidation Authorities were bound by the notification which had achieved finality."

23. Accordingly, there is no doubt that in a situation where there is any dispute with regard to location of the land and in case said land is included in the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, then the dispute can be decided under Section 11 of the Indian Forest Act by the Forest Settlement Officer who assume powers of a Civil Court and in such a situation the Consolidation authorities would not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the said dispute.

24. The Court's view in the aforesaid situation is stated in para 21 of the judgment rendered by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35386 of 2001 - Jogender Singh and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and Others, 2002 (1) AWC 141, is quoted herein below :- 8 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 "21. In view of the above discussion with regard to question No. 1, it is held that the consolidation courts cannot entertain a claim with regard to land which is covered by notification under Section 20 of Forest Act, 1927, and with regard to question No. 2 it is held that the Section 27A of the Forest Act creates express bar for adjudication of claim regarding reserved forest in any subsequent proceedings."

25. Therefore, in case there is any dispute that the land is covered under the notification issued by the Forest Department, then there is no doubt that the Consolidation authorities/Courts would have no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute, but in case it is demonstrated by the tenure holders that the land is not covered under the notification issued under the Indian Forest Act, then certainly the dispute would be cognizable by the Consolidation authorities.

26. In the present case, the issue with regard to the location of the said land is itself disputed, where the State contends that the plot no. 138 is included in the notification issued under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, while on the other hand, private respondents contend otherwise, and therefore, the consolidation authorities do have the right to consider and return a finding with regard to the location of the disputed land to determine their jurisdiction. Even otherwise, present proceedings have been remanded by the High Court in its judgment and order dated

30.07.1980 and no objection was raised with regard to jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities before the High Court, accordingly, it is for the reasons aforesaid, this Court do not find any merit in the ground raised by the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities, which is accordingly rejected.

27. It was further contended on behalf of petitioners that once notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act has been issued, no right can accrue to any individual over the said land, but, considering the arguments of the petitioners the issue which falls for consideration is as to whether the disputed land falls within the boundaries as described in the notification under Section 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act.

28. There is sufficient material available on record that deserves to be considered by this Court to answer the question raised by the petitioners. Firstly, this Court finds that the Assistant Consolidation Officer has 9 WRIB No. 322 of 1999 submitted a spot inspection report on the direction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 10.03.1981. A detailed site map was also prepared and submitted by him, and from the aforesaid map it was found that the disputed land was at a distance from the forest land which was notified under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act and not included in the said notification.

29. The second spot inspection report is dated 08.05.1981, which was conducted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court on 30.07.1980. The Deputy Director of Consolidation considered the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act and concluded that the disputed land does not fall within the ambit of land mentioned in Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. He has dealt with the boundaries described in the notification and also considered the boundaries existing at ground level and found that Gata No. 138 is away from the land included in the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act.

30. Third spot inspection report was submitted by one Virendra Singh, Advocate Commissioner, who conducted inspection on the direction of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and submitted his report on

24.06.1985. He conducted the inspection on 15.06.1985 in the presence of learned counsel for the private respondents, Government Advocate, and officers of the Forest Department. On the basis of spot inspection, he has prepared a detailed map and even considered the fixed points that were installed during consolidation operations and tallied them with the boundaries given in the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. He clearly and exactly found the location of plot no. 138, adjacent to which on the western side is the Lakhimpur-Nighasn road. He found that on the eastern corner of the disputed property is the Junai river, as well as Pakka road connecting the old bridge. He found the area of plot no. 138 was 30.25 acres whose possession was with Jarnail Singh, Sukhvendra Singh, Darshan Singh, Laskar Singh, Bela Singh, Sheel Kaur, Vedant Kaur, Vishnu Singh, Baldev Singh, and their crops were standing on the fields, and on some portion, sugar cane and corn were also sown. He found that the land of Gata No. 138 is separate and distinct and not included in the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, where the boundary described was the State Mazra Farm. 10 WRIB No. 322 of 1999

31. Accordingly, all three inspection reports have been submitted at various points in time, and there is no objection to the aforesaid reports. Lastly, the Advocate Commissioner had conducted a spot inspection in the presence of various officials. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation), as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation, have relied upon the aforesaid inspection reports, which returned findings that Gata No. 138 is not included in the notification issued by the State Government and therefore would not be included in the "reserve forest".

32. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that this Court finds force in the contention of the respondents who have relied upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court stating that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the revenue authorities are not to be altered unless and until said findings are perverse or suffer from some material irregularity which renders the finding arbitrary or illegal.

33. The petitioners could not assail the aforesaid spot inspection reports on the basis of any cogent material or evidence. They could not place before this Court any other material or evidence in support of their contention that the disputed land lies within the boundaries described in the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Forest Act, and therefore, this Court finds itself unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners. There are concurrent findings of fact. Hence, the scope of interference by this Court is minimal unless there is a grave error. This Court has not been able to find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities and, therefore, has no hesitation in affirming the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation, and accordingly, there is no occasion to interfere in the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

34. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. September 12, 2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur,J.) ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench