Once Provisions Of Indian Forest Act Have Not Been Challenged & Are Valid, Its Operation Cannot Be Ignored: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that once provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 have not been challenged and are valid, the operation of the same cannot be ignored.
The Lucknow Bench of the Court observed thus in a second appeal preferred by Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar held, “The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dhanraj versus Vikram Singh and others(supra), has held that in absence of any challenge to the validity of the statutory provisions, the High Court ought not to have undertaken the exercise of going into the question of repugnancy. Thus, once the provisions of the Indian Forest Act have not been challenged and are valid, the operation of the same cannot be ignored. Consequently, once the notification was issued under Section 4 followed by Section 20 of the Act of 1927, the natural consequence would be that the land in dispute has been declared as forest land and nobody has right on the said land. Any objection in this regard could have been raised only before the Forest Settlement Officer after issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, which admittedly has not been raised.”
Additional Advocate General Vimal Srivastava and Standing Counsel S.K. Khare represented the appellant while Advocate Satendra Nath Rai represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The second appeal, under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), was filed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional District Judge Kheri, by means of which the appeal was dismissed upholding the judgment and decree passed by the VIth Additional Munsif, Lakhimpur Kheri in Regular Suit. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act was issued in regard to land, which includes the land in dispute, having area 31.60 acre in 1966 and published in the Gazette and notification under Section 20 of the said Act was issued in regard to land having area 174.31 acre in 1970 and published in the Gazette.
Therefore, the respondents had no right and title on the said land after the said date. He further submitted that the respondents had filed the suit for permanent injunction in the year 1977 claiming their rights on the land in dispute on the basis of the order passed in their favour under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, which was filed and allowed after the aforesaid notifications, therefore the same was without jurisdiction, and no right or title could have been conferred on the respondents as the same was barred by Section 27 A of the Act of 1927 as per the State amendment of U.P. But without considering the aforesaid, the suit for permanent injunction was decreed, therefore the appellant had filed Civil Appeal, which was also dismissed.
The High Court in the above regard noted, “It is also noticed that the trial court examined the legality and validity of the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Act of 1927 without being challenged, whereas the same could not have been done because the same could even not have been challenged in suit for permanent injunction. The notification issued under the statutory provision could not be held illlegal without being challenged. Even otherwise, the trial court has held that it is not completely legal, meaning thereby it’s legality has not been disputed but it has been held only on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove as to when notice of the notification was given to the respondents and when it’s munadi was done, whereas once notification under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Act of 1927 were issued and published in official gazette, it will be deemed that they have been issued in accordance with law after following due procedure of law and it could not have been held illegal or inoperative without challenge to the notifications in appropriate proceedings but not in a suit for permanent injunction.”
The Court further said that it had become final after declaration of reserve forest under Section 20 and under Section 27(A) of the Act of 1927 and the order under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was passed in a suit filed after issuance of the notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, which could not have been done and similarly the injunction could not have been granted by the civil court.
“… it is apparent that after issuance of the notification under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Act of 1927 in the year 1966 and 1970 respectively, no authority or court had power to entertain any dispute in regard to the land declared as reserve forest under Section 20 in view of Section 27(A) as added by U.P. Act No.23 of 1965, therefore, the suit under Section 229-B of the Act of 1950, that too without impleading the Forest department or concerned Officer of the forest department, was not maintainable and in any case, no effective relief could have been granted without its impleadment and the orders passed on the back of him cannot be applicable on it”, it added.
The Court observed that thus, the suit for permanent injunction, claiming right and title was not maintainable and could not have been decreed and even otherwise, the respondents have failed to prove their case.
It concluded that the judgment and order passed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree.
Cause Title- Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:22337)
Appearance:
Appellant: Additional Advocate General Vimal Srivastava and Standing Counsel S.K. Khare.
Respondents: Advocates Satendra Nath Rai and Sajid Raza Rizvi.
