Holding

The land vested in the State, was validly declared a reserved forest, the Gaon Sabha lacked authority to lease it, and revenue‑record entries do not confer title; therefore the Deputy Director’s order is restored.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether 162 acres of land in Kasmandi Khurd, Uttar Pradesh, vested in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and was subsequently declared a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It held that the Gaon Sabha had no authority to grant a lease to the lessee because the land was state‑owned and no written contract authorising such lease existed. The Court further ruled that entries in the revenue record do not confer title or ownership. Consequently, the High Court’s order setting aside the Deputy Director of Consolidation’s decision was erroneous. The appeal by the forest department was allowed and the Deputy Director’s order correcting the revenue entry in favour of the Forest Department was restored.

Issues considered

The land’s vesting in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
Whether the State could lawfully declare the land a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927
Whether the Gaon Sabha was competent to grant a lease over the forest land
Whether a revenue‑record entry creates a title or right in favour of the lessee
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the Deputy Director of Consolidation’s order
Whether Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 bars the lessee’s objections

Legislation cited

Indian Forest Act, 1927s. 20, s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953s. 48, s. 49
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 117, s. 4

Subjects

land vestingreserved forestGaon Sabha leaserevenue record titleconsolidation actIndian Forest ActZamindari Abolition Actforest rights

Judgment

234 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 10 S.C.R. 234 [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG
v.
ARUN KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7017 of 2009)
B OCTOBER 05, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – ss.4,
117 – Indian Forest Act, 1927 – ss.3-6, 20 – U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 – ss.48, 49 – Proceedings initiated by Forest
C
Department to rectify the revenue record from the name of the lessee
to that of the Forest Department – Application dismissed – Appeal
also dismissed – In revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation set
aside the order dismissing the application and ordered the revenue
entry of Khasra Nos.1576 and 1738 to be corrected in the name of
D Department of Forest – Writ petition filed by lessees, order passed
by Deputy Director of Consolidation set aside – On appeal, held:
Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant lease in favour of the
appellant – 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
E
writing by a competent authority but no such agreement was
produced – Lessee would not be entitled to any right only on the
basis of an entry in the revenue record – Revenue record is not a
document of title – Order of the High Court set aside while that of
the Deputy Director of Consolidation is restored.
F
Indian Forest Act, 1927:
s.5 – Bar under – Discussed.
s.4 – Requirements of – Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1 The notification dated 11.10.1952 published in
terms of Section 4 of the Abolition Act was to the effect that all
estates situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State. The
extent to which uncultivated land which not vests in Gaon Samaj
was mentioned in Column 5 stating that 162 acres of Village
H
234
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 235
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Kasmandi Khurd would not vest in Gaon Samaj. Such notification A
has the effect that all rights, title and interest, shall be deemed to
be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of Section 117
of the Abolition Act, the State can transfer the lands by a general
or special order as prescribed therein including forests to Gaon
Sabha and to other local authorities. It is not the case of any of
B
the parties that the land, which was the subject matter of
notification dated 11.10.1952, was subject to any general or special
orders by the State to transfer the same in favor of Gaon Sabha
and/or any other local authority. Therefore, the land comprising
in notification dated 11.10.1952 unequivocally vests with the
State. It is thereafter that a notification dated 23.11.1955 was C
published in respect of 162 acres of land situated in Kasmandi
Khurd. Such notification describes the land with boundaries
mentioned in the notification. Thereafter, another proclamation
was published under Section 6 of the Forest Act in respect of
162 acres of land including 20 bighas 13 biswas and 10 biswansi
D
of Khasra No.1576 of Village Kasmandi Khurd. The notification
under Section 4 of the Forest Act to declare any land as reserved
forest could be issued if the State has proprietary rights over
such land or if it is entitled to the produce thereof. The State
Government has the jurisdiction to declare a protected forest if
the land is the property of the Government over which proprietary E
rights are exercised. The land measuring 162 acres was the
property of the Government in terms of the notification dated
11.10.1952. In terms of Section 4 of the Forest Act, the State
Government can issue a notification to constitute any land as
reserved forest. In the notification published on 23.11.1955, there
F
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 G
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
H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 162 acres find mention in the proclamation so published.
Therefore, the statutory procedural requirements stand satisfied.
Further, 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
B
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
C 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. [Paras 16-18,
22, 24][247-C-H; 248-A; 249-B-C; 250-C-E]
State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors.
D (1996) 5 SCC 194 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 191; State of
Uttarakhand and Ors. v. Kumaon Stone Crushe (2018)
14 SCC 537: [2017] 11 SCR 591; Prahlad Pradhan
and Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors, (2019) 10 SCC 259
: [2019] 14 SCALE 49 – relied on.
E 1.2 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
F 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
G lessee as a lessee of the Gaon Sabha. 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

H
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 237
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS.

by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. Such finding recorded by A
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
B
lessee would not be entitled to any right only on the basis of an
entry in the revenue record. The order of the High Court is set
aside. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
dated 8.7.2004 is restored. [Paras 27-29][252-C-G]
Case Law Reference
C
[1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 191 relied on Para 23
[2017] 11 SCR 591 relied on Para 25
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7017 of
2009.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.576 (Cons) of 2004.
Ravindra Raizada, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan
Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant.
Naushad Ahmad Khan, Aftab Ali Khan, Ms. Manisha Chauhan, E
Ali Safeer Farooqi, Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Arvind Kumar Kanva, Anil Hooda,
Jitender Hooda, Shafik Ahmed, Ajay Sharma, Anuraag Tripathi, Harinder
Mohan Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J. F

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 30.11.2005 whereby the writ
petition filed by the respondents1 was allowed.
2. The High Court vide the impugned order has set aside the G
order dated 08.07.2004 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
Lucknow, wherein, the revenue entry of Khasra Nos. 1576 and 1738
was ordered to be corrected in the name of Department of Forest and
the claim of rival claimants were set aside.
1
For short, the ‘lessees’ H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 3. A notification dated 11.10.1952 under Section 4 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 19502 was published in U.P.
Gazette dated 18.10.1952 to the effect that an area of 162 acres in
Village Kasmandi Khurd shall not vest with the Gaon Samaj. The relevant
extract of the notification reads thus:
B “No. 617 xIV- In exercise of the powers conferred by section
117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950
(U.P. Act 1 of 1951), the Governor is pleased to declare that as
from the first day of November, 1952-
1. All land, whether cultivable or otherwise except land for
C the time being comprised in any holding or grove, and
2. All the forest within the village boundaries.
Situate in a circle, which have vested in the state under the
said Act, shall, subject to the exceptions shown in Schedules
land I and II hereto, vest in the Gaon Samaj established for
D the Circle.
Schedule I
Particulars of uncultivated land and the extent to which they shall
not vest in Gaon Samajs

E District Tahsil Pargana Village Extent to which the
uncultivated land
(to be demarcated
shall not vest)
1 2 3 4 5
Lucknow Lucknow Bijnor 1. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
19. Kasmandi Khurd 162
F
4. The provisions of the Abolition Act, as are relevant for the
purpose of the present appeal, read thus: -
“4. Vesting of estates in the State. - (1) As soon as may be after
the commencement of this Act, the State Government may, by
G notification, declare that, as from a date to be specified, all estates
situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from the
beginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the date of
vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest, except
as hereinafter provided, in the State free from all encumbrances.
2
H For short, the ‘Abolition Act’
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 239
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

(2) It shall be lawful for the State Government, if it so considers A
necessary, to issue, from time to time, the notification referred to
in sub-section (1) in respect only of such area or areas as may be
specified and all the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be applicable
to and in the case of every such notification.
5. Notification to be published in the Gazette. - The notification B
referred to in Section 4 shall be published in the Gazette and such
publication shall be conclusive proof of the due publication thereof.
6. Consequences of the vesting of an estate in the State. -When
the notification under Section 4 has been published in the Gazette,
then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or C
document or in any other law for the time being in force and save
as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter
set forth shall, from the beginning of the date of vesting, ensure in
the area to which the notification relates, namely:
(a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries— D
(i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren),
groveland, forests whether within or outside village boundaries,
trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove), fisheries,
tanks, ponds, waterchannels, ferries, pathways, abadi sites, hats,
bazars and melas [other than hats, bazars and melas held upon E
land to which clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 18
apply], and
(ii) in all sub-soil in such estates including rights, if any, in mines
and minerals, whether being worked or not,
F
shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from
all encumbrances;
xx xx xx”
5. It is thus contended that in terms of Section 4 of the Abolition
Act, all rights, title and interest of all intermediaries including the forest G
had vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of Section 117 of the
Abolition Act, the land of the forest can vest in the Gaon Sabha or any
other local authority by a general or special order of the Government.
Section 117 of the Abolition Act reads as:
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A “117. Vesting of certain lands etc., in Gaon Sabhas and other local
authorities.- 1) At any time after the publication of the notification
referred to in Section 4, the State Government may, by general or
special orders to be published in the manner prescribed declare
that as from a date to be specified in this behalf, all or any of the
following things, namely:
B
(i) lands, whether cultivable or otherwise, except lands for the
time being comprised in any holding or grove;
(ii) forests;
(iii) trees, other than trees in a holding or on the boundary of a
C
holding or in grove or a abadi;
(iv) fisheries;
(v) hats, bazars and melas except hats, bazars and melas
held on lands to which the provisions of Clauses (a) to (c)
D of sub-section (1) of Section 18 apply or on sites and areas
referred to Section 9; and
(vi) tanks, ponds, private ferries, water channels, pathways and
abadi sites,-
which had vested in the State under this Act shall vest in the Gaon
E
Sabhas or any other local authority established for the whole or
part of the village in which the said things are situate, or party in
one such local authority (including a Gaon Sabha) partly in another:
Provided that it shall be lawful for the State Government to
make the declaration aforesaid subject to such exceptions and
F
conditions as may be specified in such order.”
6. It may be stated that no general or special orders have been
issued by the State Government for vesting any part of the land measuring
162 acres with the Gaon Sabha.
G 7. It was on 23.11.1955, a notification was issued under Section 4
of the Indian Forest Act, 19273. Vide the said notification, objections
were invited in respect of the land forming part of the notification. The
relevant extract of the notification reads thus:

3
H For short, the ‘Forest Act’
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 241
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

“Government of Uttar Pradesh A
Department of Forest
Misc.
23.11.1955
6828/1-806-55 – Following land has been declared as B
Protected Forest by his Excellency Governor, as per the powers
provided under Section 4 Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Act No. 16 of
1927)
According to Section 4 sub-section 1(C) of the aforesaid
Act, concerned Sub-Divisional Officer is appointed Forest C
Settlement Officer and Additional Commissioner, Lucknow
Division empowered to receive objections against the order of
Forest Settlement Officer under Section 17 of the Act.
S.No. Name Tehsil Pargana Area in Area Details West Of Sides
of Acres taken East North South
Place according in
D
to Acres
Gazette
48 Kasm Malihabad Malihabad 162 - Amaniganj Railway Agricultur Agriculture
andi Banjar line Banjar e field and field
Khurd Bhumi and Bhumi Canal
Agriculture Agriculture
field field
E
8. After the said notification, a proclamation under Section 6 of
the Forest Act was carried out on 28.04.1968. The relevant extract of
the proclamation after publication reads thus:
Distt. Tehsil Pargana Village Area in Acres Details of Boundaries
Khasra Area in
No. Bigha F
Luck no w Malihabad Malihabad Kasmandi xxx
Khurd xxx
xxx
1576 20.13.10
xxx
xxx
xxx
(57) 259 4.15
G
162 Acre
North – Araji Majruba
South – Sarhar Mauja
Madhour Satwal
Majruba East- Sadak
West – Sarhar Mauja
Sindhwapur H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 9. The extract from the Indian Forest Act, 1927 relevant for the
present appeal reads thus:
“3. Power to reserve forests. - The State Government may
constitute any forest-land or waste-land which is the property of
Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights,
B or to the whole or any part of the forest-produce of which the
Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter
provided.
4. Notification by State Government. - (1) Whenever it has been
decided to constitute any land a reserved forest, the State
C Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette—
(a) declaring that it has been decided to constitute such land a
reserved forest;
(b) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of
such land; and
D
(c) appointing an officer (hereinafter called “the Forest Settlement-
officer”) to inquire into and determine the existence, nature and
extent of any rights alleged to exist in favour of any person in or
over any land comprised within such limits or in or over any forest-
produce, and to deal with the same as provided in this Chapter.
E
Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (b), it shall be sufficient
to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other
well-known or readily intelligible boundaries.
(2) The officer appointed under clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall
ordinarily be a person not holding any forest-office except that of
F
Forest Settlement-officer.
(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the State Government
from appointing any number of officers not exceeding three, not
more than one of whom shall be a person holding any forest-
office except as aforesaid, to perform the duties of a Forest
G Settlement-officer under this Act.
5. Bar of accrual of forest rights. - After the issue of a 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 contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf
H
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 243
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested A
when the notification was issued; and no fresh clearings for
cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land
except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the
State Government in this behalf.
6. Proclamation by Forest Settlement-officer. - When a notification B
has been issued under Section 4, the Forest Settlement-officer
shall publish in the local vernacular in every town and village in
the neighbourhood of the land comprised therein, a proclamation—
(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of the
proposed forest; C
(b) explaining the consequences which, as hereinafter provided,
will ensure on the reservation of such forest; and
(c) fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of
such proclamation, and requiring every person claiming any right
mentioned in Section 4 or Section 5 within such period either to D
present to the Forest Settlement-officer a written notice specifying
or to appear before him and state, the nature of such right and the
amount and particulars of the compensation (if any) claimed in
respect thereof.
xxx xxx xxx E
20. Notification declaring forest reserved. - (1) When the following
events have occurred, namely:—
(a) the period fixed under Section 6 for preferring claims have
elapsed and all claims if any made under that section or Section 9
have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement-officer; F
(b) if any such claims have been made, the period limited by
Section 17 for appealing from the orders passed on such claims
has elapsed, and all appeals (if any) presented within such period
have been disposed of by the appellate officer or; Court and
(c) all lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which G
the Forest Settlement-officer has, under Section 11, elected to
acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), have
become vested in the Government under Section 16 of that Act,
the State Government shall publish a notification in the Official
Gazette, specifying definitely, according to boundary-marks erected H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved, and
declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the
notification.
(2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a
reserved forest.”
B 10. It appears that local management committee (Gaon Sabha)
had put the lessees into possession of 7 bighas of land on 15.05.1966 and
another 5 bighas of land on 26.12.1966 forming part of Khasra No. 1576
measuring 20 bighas 13 biswas and 10 biswansi. Such act of grant of
lease was challenged by the Forest Department but remained
C unsuccessful vide order dated 19.12.1969. Such order passed by Sub-
Divisional Officer, Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow was set aside by the
Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division on 22.07.1970. The further
revision filed by the lessee before the Board of Revenue was dismissed
but in terms of order dated 22.07.1970, a fresh decision was to be taken
after impleading local management committee who had granted lease to
D the lessee on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. There is nothing on record as to
what happened consequent to the remand by the Additional Commissioner
as affirmed upon by the Board of Revenue.
11. In the six-years khatauni for the period 1380 fasli to 1388 fasli,
the barren land which could be made cultivable including Khasra no.
E 1576 were recorded to be transferred from the name of Gaon Sabha
village Kasmandi Khurd to Department of Forest.
“Six Years Khatauni
Village: Kasmandi Khurd Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad Distt.
F Lucknow
Year : From 1380 Fasli year to till Fasli 1388
S.No. of Name of Year start Khasra Area in P ayable Brief of any order of changes, no. Comments
khata Khatedar phical no. of Hec in lagaan or and date and the name and post of
Khatauni and possession each plot bigha malguzari issuing officer attested by
Father’s (band) Registrar Qanungo
name
1383 84 85 86 87 88
G 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Category 2 as Sankramniya Bhuomidar
18 K (Krishi Category All the plots mentioned in Khatauni to be
Yogya 5 Plot transferred from the name of Gram Samaj,
Banjar) No.6 to Village Kasmandi Khurd, to Department of
Barren 1568 N.A. Forest.
Land but
can be 1576 7.3
made
cultivable 1579 to N.A.
H 1800
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 245
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

12. That a six yearly khatauni for the fasli year 1395 to 1400 was A
issued by which Khasra no. 1576 was transferred to the forest as a
protected forest. The relevant extract from the khatauni reads thus:
“INTKHAB SIX YEARLY KHATAUNI
VILLAGE KASMANDI KHURD, PARGANA AND TEHSIL,
MALIHABAD, B
DISTT. LUCKNOW, YEAR 1395 TO 1400
Khatauni Name of Year of Plot No. Area Illegible
Information
No. land ownership regarding
owner change in
ownership
entered by C
any officer
1395, 1396,
1397, 1398,
1399, 1400
Category 5 Barren Land but can be made cultivable (Krishi Yogya Banjar) – The
land has been transferred according to the forest act as protected forest
881 Deptt. of - 1576 20.13.10 D
Forest
13. The name of the lessee appears for the first time in the khatauni
prepared for the year 1407 fasli till 1412 fasli wherein the possession of
the lessee was recorded from 1394 fasli to 1395 fasli in respect of 12
bighas of land. E
“Six Years Khatauni
Intikhab Khatauni
Village: Kasmandi Khurd Pargana and Tehsil Malihabad Distt.
Lucknow
Year : From 1407 Fasli year to till Fasli 1412 F
S.No. of Name of Year start Khasra Area Payable Brief of any order of Comments
khata Khatedar phical no. of in lagaan or changes, no. and date and the
Khatauni and possession each Hec malguzari name and post of issuing
Father’s plot in officer attested by Registrar
name bigha Qanungo
(band)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 G
Category 2 as Sankramniya Bho midar
295 Brij From 1576/ A 7
Mohan 1394 to and
S/o 1395 1576/ A 5
Kakaram 2
R/o ---- ----
Daliganj 12 75
Lucknow
City H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 14. It is thereafter, proceedings were initiated under the U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 19534 by the Forest Department to rectify
the revenue record from the name of the lessee to that of the Forest
Department. Such application was dismissed on 22.07.1993. The appeal
against the said order was dismissed. The Deputy Director Consolidation,
in a revision under Section 48 of the Consolidation Act, vide order dated
B
08.07.2004, set aside the order dated 22.07.1993. The Deputy Director
in its order on 28.02.2004 held as under:
“………In this regard it is clear as has been stated before that
the notification has been issued regarding the land in village
including disputed Plot no. by the Dept. of Forest, copy of which
C is sent to all the Depts. Therefore at the time of making entry in
the records same has to be taken cognizance of and it has been
done also accordingly. Since the disputed land has been notified in
the name of Deptt. of Forest so that land cannot be used for
agricultural purposes and in such situation the grant of patta of
D the land loses its relevance. If the father of opposite party has got
patta Bhoomidari saved on irregular basis, it does not have any
significance. The Chakbandi Officer and Astt. Bandobast Officer
Chakbandi has distorted the facts and had tried to cause loss to
the Govt. and Dept. of Forest and benefit to opposite parties which
is highly objectionable.
E
From the above it is clear that the Chakbandi Officer and
Asst. Bandobast Officer Chakbandi had completely ignored the
claim of Dept. of Forest regarding the notification of disputed
land in their favour and had deleted their name without any reasons
and had got the land in question in favour of the land owners. The
F above act of the officers is punishable offence as it causes damage
to Govt. property. In my opinion action to be taken against them
according to law. The disputed plot has been notified in the name
of Dept. of Forest and the entry no. 88 to such effect has to be
continued with without any interference and double entries to be
G omitted/cancelled. According the appeal is entitled to be allowed.
Order
Therefore on the basis of above analysis the appeal is
hereby admitted. The order of Chakbandi Officer dated 22.7.93
4
H For short, the ‘Consolidation Act’
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 247
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

and Astt. Bandobast Officer Chakbandi dated 28.2.2004 is hereby A
set aside. Plot No. 1576 of area DO/13/10 and Plot No. 1738 of
area. 1 Bigha, plot no. 868/1830 of area 2-4-0 entry no. 881 in
favour of Dept. of Forest and the claim of other land owners is
hereby cancelled. Case file consigned to record room.”
15. It is the said order which was set aside by the High Court in B
the writ petition filed by the lessees.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High
Court has gravely erred in setting aside the order passed by the Deputy
Director as there was no legal or factual basis to do so. The notification
dated 11.10.1952 published in terms of Section 4 of the Abolition Act C
was to the effect that all estates situated in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in
the State. The extent to which uncultivated land which not vests in Gaon
Samaj was mentioned in Column 5 stating that 162 acres of Village
Kasmandi Khurd would not vest in Gaon Samaj. Such notification has
the effect that all rights, title and interest, shall be deemed to be vested
in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In terms of Section 117 of the Abolition D
Act, the State can transfer the lands by a general or special order as
prescribed therein including forests to Gaon Sabha and to other local
authorities. It is not the case of any of the parties that the land, which
was the subject matter of notification dated 11.10.1952, was subject to
any general or special orders by the State to transfer the same in favor E
of Gaon Sabha and/or any other local authority. Therefore, the land
comprising in notification dated 11.10.1952 unequivocally vests with the
State.
17. It is thereafter that a notification dated 23.11.1955 was
published in respect of 162 acres of land situated in Kasmandi Khurd. F
Such notification describes the land with boundaries mentioned in the
notification. Thereafter, another proclamation was published under Section
6 of the Forest Act in respect of 162 acres of land including 20 bighas 13
biswas and 10 biswansi of Khasra No. 1576 of Village Kasmandi Khurd.
The notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act to declare any land as
reserved forest could be issued if the State has proprietary rights over G
such land or if it is entitled to the produce thereof.
18. The State Government has the jurisdiction to declare a protected
forest if the land is the property of the Government over which proprietary
rights are exercised. The land measuring 162 acres was the property of
the Government in terms of the notification dated 11.10.1952. In terms H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A of Section 4 of the Forest Act, the State Government can issue a
notification to constitute any land as reserved forest. The notification
dated 23.11.1955 satisfies the three conditions mentioned in sub-section
4 i.e., (i) decision to constitute such land as reserved forest, (ii) situation
and limits of such land, and (iii) appointing an officer to inquire into and
determine the existence, nature and extent of any rights alleged to exist
B
in favour of any person in or over any land comprised within such limits.
The lessees were not in possession of any part of the land at the time of
issuance of such notification under Section 4 on 23.11.1955. Therefore,
they have rightly not claimed any right over the property nor the Gaon
Sabha has claimed any right in the land measuring 162 acres notified
C under Section 4 of the Act.
19. Section 5 of the Forest Act bars that no right shall be acquired
in or over the land comprised in notification under Section 4 of the Forest
Act, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made
or entered into by or on behalf of the Government. Once the notification
D dated 23.11.1955 was published under Section 4 of the Forest Act, there
could not be any transfer of right in the land so notified in favour of the
lessee by the Gaon Sabha.
20. It is thereafter, a proclamation was required to be issued under
Section 6 of the Forest Act publishing in the local vernacular in every
E town and village specified, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits
of the proposed forest. In the proclamation under Section 6 of the Forest
Act, different khasra numbers have been specified including Khasra
No. 1576. Such khasra number forms part of the total forest land declared
under Section 4 of the Act measuring 162 acres. The proclamation of
publication was published in the locality but none including the Gaon
F Sabha objected to the declaration of land as forest area.
21. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the lessee and Mr. Hooda,
learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha vehemently argued that the details
of land in respect of which notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act
was issued are not mentioned, except providing the total area measuring
G 162 acres. It was argued that such notification is vague and does not
comply with the conditions specified in Section 4 of the Forest Act. It
was only in the proclamation published under Section 6 of the Forest Act
that Khasra No. 1576 was mentioned.
22. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by Mr. Khan
H and Mr. Hooda. In the notification published on 23.11.1955, there was a
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 249
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

declaration that land measuring 162 acres shall constitute forest land. A
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
B
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.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to a judgment C
reported as State of U.P. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors.5
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 D
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 E
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 F
notification under Section 4 of the Act.
xx xx xx
10. 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 G
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
5
(1996) 5 SCC 194 H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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.”
24. Mr. Khan further raised an argument that the final notification
C under Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been published. 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
D 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
E favour of the appellant.
25. In a judgment reported as State of Uttarakhand and Ors. v.
Kumaon Stone Crusher6, 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
F 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:
G
“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
6
H (2018) 14 SCC 537
PRABHAGIYA VAN ADHIKARI AWADH VAN PRABHAG v. ARUN 251
KUMAR BHARDWAJ (DEAD) THR. LRS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

but no final notification having been issued under Section 20 of A
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
B
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 C
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 D
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
E
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.” F
26. This Court in a judgment reported as Prahlad Pradhan and
Ors. v. Sonu Kumhar and Ors.7 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: G
“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
7
(2019) 10 SCC 259 H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 10 S.C.R.

A 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 Kumhar’s name was recorded in the
Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property,
B
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.
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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.
29. In view thereof, we find that the order of the High Court
G cannot be sustained in law. The same is hereby set aside. The appeal is
allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated
8.7.2004 is restored.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

H