IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 222 of 2010 Shiv Chander Lal and another ….…... Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the applicants / appellants. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand) for the non-applicant / respondents. Date of Judgment: 25.11.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Delay Condonation Application No. 9871 of 2010 Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand), is appearing for all the respondents. As fair as he is, he has not objected to the statements made in the application for condonation delay, giving the reasons for the delay. We have also considered the same and being satisfied with the reason for delay, allow the application for condonation of delay. Special Appeal No. 222 of 2010 Admit. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It appears to be the contention of the appellants that they were allotted some land under Government Grants Act, 1895. Soon thereafter, they were muted in the revenue records of the State as rightful holders of those lands. The land revenue payable by them in respect of the lands in question, were determined and the appellants started paying such land revenue. On 25th December 1965, it is the contention of the appellants, some land, in the vicinity of the land belonging to the appellants, was declared as reserved forest. Thereupon, sometimes in or about 1968, the names of the appellants were removed from the revenue records and 2 thereupon land revenue was not accepted from the appellants. At the same time, Forest Department initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellants. The said proceedings reached upto the High Court. In 2006, after the final order was passed by this Court, the said proceedings came to an end, and in terms thereof, it has been held that the Forest Department has not been able to establish that the lands of the appellants are part of the declared reserved forest. It is the contention of the appellants that the State Government in its Forest Department accepted the ultimate verdict of this Court and has not taken up the matter higher up. 4. It is the contention of the appellants that despite the said state of affair, the revenue records pertaining to the lands in question, showing that the appellants are entitled to be in possession thereof and, accordingly, are liable to pay land revenue in respect thereof, has not been revived. It is the contention of the appellants that in such circumstances, the appellants were constrained to approach this Court by filing a writ petition. It appears that the said writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal, whereby the appellants have, however, been permitted to approach appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance. The said order has been passed assuming the matter involves disputed questions of fact. 5. Section 40 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, which is applicable to the State, provides the mode, manner and method of recording persons entitled to be recorded as entitled to posses any land in the State. However, by a notification, issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 28th May 1959, which notification is also applicable to the State, lands covered by Government Grants Act, 1895 have been excluded from the purview of various acts. Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 is, however, not one of those Acts. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the said notification mentions “any other Acts” and, accordingly, apprehends that Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 is also excluded. The fact remains that the lands in question were recorded 3 in the revenue records. We, therefore, feel that Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 applies in full force to the lands in question. 6. We, accordingly, grant liberty to the appellants to take recourse to Section 40 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 and in the event such recourse is taken, the appropriate authorities shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the event appellants take such recourse within a period of one month from today, the authorities concerned are directed to complete their part of the obligations under the said Act within a period of 9 months therefrom. 7. This disposes of the Special Appeal. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 25.11.2010 25.11.2010 Amit