IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.212 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR SINGH ………………………….. APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT – MUNGER 4. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER-CUM-DISTRICT DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DIVISION, MUNGER ………………………. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh Mr. Jitendra Nath Tiwary Mr. Upendra Mishra, Advocates For the respondents : Mr. S.K.Ghosh, AAG - II --- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 21st October, 2008 The counsel for the appellant would urge that no notification declaring the area in question as reserved forest was issued under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, “the Act 1927”) nor the publication of such notification has been done in conformity with sections 21 & 31 of the said Act. 2. We asked the counsel for the appellant to show us from show-cause that such objection was raised. Although, show- cause has not been annexed with the writ petition or the appeal, the only objection that the counsel could show from the show-cause was, no notification under section 20 has been issued declaring the subject area as reserved forest. As a matter of fact, objection to this 2 extent has been noticed by the Authorized Officer in his order dated 6th January, 2004. 3. Mr. S.K.Ghosh, Additional Advocate General – II placed before us the copy of the notification dated January 6, 1946 published in the Bihar Gazette notifying Patam village as part of reserved forest. 4. From perusal of the said notification, we find that the objection of the counsel of the appellant that no notification was issued under section 20 of the Act 1927, is without any basis. 5. As already noticed above, there is no objection in the show-cause that publication of the notification has not been done as required under sections 21 & 31 of the Act 1927. 6. Obviously, for want of such objection before the Authorized Officer, the State government had no occasion to rebut such contention before the said authority. 7. In our considered view, in the light of the notification dated February 6, 1946, the contention of the counsel of the appellant with regard to non-issuance of the notification under Section 20 of the Act 1927, does not survive. 8. Letters patent appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/- 3