Case: PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG Vs. ARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. &amp; ORS

the Forest Act, there is a prohibition against acquisition of any right over the land comprised in such notification except by way of a contract executed in writing by or on behalf of the Government. Since no such written contract was executed by or on behalf of the State or on behalf of the person in whom such right was vested, therefore, the Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease in favour of the appellant. 25. In a judgment reported as State of Uttarakhand and Ors. v. Kumaon Stone Crusher (2018) 14 SCC 537, an argument was raised that since notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been published therefore, land covered by notification issued under Section 4 cannot be regarded as forest. This Court negated the argument relying upon Section 5 of the Forest Act as amended in State of Uttar Pradesh by U.P. Act No. 23 of 1965. It was held that regulation by the State comes into operation after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act and that absence of notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act cannot be accepted. The Court held as under: 145. At this juncture, it is also necessary to notice one submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh although issued notification under Section 4 of the 1927 Act proposing to constitute a land as forest but no final notification having been issued under Section 20 of the 1927 Act the land covered by a notification issued under Section 4 cannot be regarded as forest so as to levy transit fee on the forest produce transiting through that area. With reference to the above submission, it is sufficient to notice Section 5 as inserted by Uttar Pradesh Act 23 of 1965 with effect from 25-11-1965. By the aforesaid U.P. Act 23 of 1965 Section 5 has been substituted to the following effect: 5. Bar of accrual of forest rights.—After the issue of the notification under Section 4 no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or a contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land, nor any tree therein felled, girdled, lopped, tapped, or burnt, or its bark or leaves stripped off, or the same otherwise damaged, nor any forest produce removed therefrom, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf. 146. Section 5 clearly provides that after the issue of the notification under Section 4 no forest produce can be removed therefrom, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf. The regulation by the State thus comes into operation after the issue of notification under Section 4 and thus the submission of the petitioners that since no final notification under Section 20 has been issued they cannot be regulated by the 1978 Rules cannot be accepted. 26. This Court in a judgment reported as Prahlad Pradhan and Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 259 negated argument of ownership based upon entries in the revenue records. It was held that the revenue record does not confer title to the property nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. The Court held as under: 5. The contention raised by the appellants is that since Mangal Kumhar was the recorded tenant in the suit property as per the Survey Settlement of 1964, the suit property was his self-acquired property. The said contention is legally misconceived since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value on the title. They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of the land in question. As a consequence, merely because Mangal Kumhars name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property. 27. The six yearly khatauni for the fasli year 1395 to 1400 is to the effect that the land stands transferred according to the Forest Act as the reserved forest. Such revenue record is in respect of Khasra No. 1576. It is only in the revenue record for the period 1394 fasli to 1395 fasli, name of the lessees find mention but without any basis. The revenue record is not a document of title. Therefore, even if the name of the lessee finds mention in the revenue record but such entry without any supporting documents of creation of lease contemplated under the Forest Act is inconsequential and does not create any right, title or interest over 12 bighas of land claimed to be in possession of the lessee as a lessee of the Gaon Sabha. 28. The High Court had referred to the objections filed by the lessees under the Consolidation Act and also objections by the Forest Department. It was held by the High Court that since no objections were filed by the Forest Department earlier, therefore, the objections would be barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. We find that such finding recorded by the High Court is clearly erroneous. The land vests in the Forest Department by virtue of notification published under a statute. It was the lessee who had to assert the title on the forest land by virtue of an agreement in writing by a competent authority but no such agreement in writing has been produced. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to any right only on the basis of an entry in the revenue record.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]22. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by Mr. Khan and Mr. Hooda. In the notification published on 23.11.1955, there was a declaration that land measuring 162 acres shall constitute forest land. Explanation (1) to Section 4 of the Forest Act clarifies that it would be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries. The notification dated 23.11.1955 has the boundaries on all four sides mentioned therein. There is no other requirement under Section 4 of the Forest Act. It is only Section 6 of the Forest Act which needs to specify the situation and limits of the proposed forest. In terms of such clause (a) of Section 6 of the Forest Act, the details of khasra numbers which were part of 162 acres find mention in the proclamation so published. Therefore, the statutory procedural requirements stand satisfied.State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 194  wherein the land was notified as a reserved forest under Section 20 of the Forest Act but the respondents in appeal before this Court claimed that they were in possession of the land and had acquired Sirdari rights.This Court held that in terms of the Abolition Act, the State was the proprietor of the land and the respondents, even if they were Sirdars, would still be tenure- holders. It was also held that the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to go behind the notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act. The Court held as under:7. It is thus obvious that a person who was holding the land as Sirdar was not vested with proprietary rights under the Abolition Act. He was a tenure-holder and the proprietary rights vested with the State. The High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in assuming that by virtue of their status as Sirdars the respondents were proprietors of the land. The State being the proprietor of the land under the Abolition Act, it was justified in issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act.xx xx xx10. It is thus obvious that the Forest Settlement Officer has the powers 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 a 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.A reading of Section 20 of the Forest Act does not show that for a reserved forest, there is a requirement of publication of notification but no time limit is prescribed for publication of such notification under Section 20. Therefore, even if notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been issued, by virtue of Section 5 of the Forest Act, there is a prohibition against acquisition of any right over the land comprised in such notification except by way of a contract executed in writing by or on behalf of the Government. Since no such written contract was executed by or on behalf of the State or on behalf of the person in whom such right was vested, therefore, the Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease in favour of the appellant.25. In a judgment reported as State of Uttarakhand and Ors. v. Kumaon Stone Crusher (2018) 14 SCC 537,  an argument was raised that since notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been published therefore, land covered by notification issued under Section 4 cannot be regarded as forest. This Court negated the argument relying upon Section 5 of the Forest Act as amended in State of Uttar Pradesh by U.P. Act No. 23 of 1965. It was held that regulation by the State comes into operation after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act and that absence of notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act cannot be accepted. The Court held as under:145. At this juncture, it is also necessary to notice one submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh although issued notification under Section 4 of the 1927 Act proposing to constitute a land as forest but no final notification having been issued under Section 20 of the 1927 Act the land covered by a notification issued under Section 4 cannot be regarded as forest so as to levy transit fee on the forest produce transiting through that area. With reference to the above submission, it is sufficient to notice Section 5 as inserted by Uttar Pradesh Act 23 of 1965 with effect from 25-11-1965. By the aforesaid U.P. Act 23 of 1965 Section 5 has been substituted to the following effect:5. Bar of accrual of forest rights.—After the issue of the notification under Section 4 no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in such notification, except by succession or under a grant or a contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land, nor any tree therein felled, girdled, lopped, tapped, or burnt, or its bark or leaves stripped off, or the same otherwise damaged, nor any forest produce removed therefrom, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf.146. Section 5 clearly provides that after the issue of the notification under Section 4 no forest produce can be removed therefrom, except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf. The regulation by the State thus comes into operation after the issue of notification under Section 4 and thus the submission of the petitioners that since no final notification under Section 20 has been issued they cannot be regulated by the 1978 Rules cannot be accepted.27. The six yearly khatauni for the fasli year 1395 to 1400 is to the effect that the land stands transferred according to the Forest Act as the reserved forest. Such revenue record is in respect of Khasra No. 1576. It is only in the revenue record for the period 1394 fasli to 1395 fasli, name of the lessees find mention but without any basis. The revenue record is not a document of title. Therefore, even if the name of the lessee finds mention in the revenue record but such entry without any supporting documents of creation of lease contemplated under the Forest Act is inconsequential and does not create any right, title or interest overbighas of land claimed to be in possession of the lessee as a lessee of the Gaon Sabha.28. The High Court had referred to the objections filed by the lessees under the Consolidation Act and also objections by the Forest Department. It was held by the High Court that since no objections were filed by the Forest Department earlier, therefore, the objections would be barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. We find that such finding recorded by the High Court is clearly erroneous. The land vests in the Forest Department by virtue of notification published under a statute. It was the lessee who had to assert the title on the forest land by virtue of an agreement in writing by a competent authority but no such agreement in writing has been produced. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to any right only on the basis of an entry in the revenue record.