1975 (8) TMI 135 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Forest Settlement Officer's order dated May 9, 1955.
2. Whether the appeal filed under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act was within the prescribed time limit.
3. Jurisdiction of the appellate tribunal in setting aside the order of the Forest Settlement Officer.
4. Validity of the State Government's order on the revision petition filed by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Forest Settlement Officer's Order Dated May 9, 1955:
The appellant had claimed Sirdari rights over certain plots of land under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Forest Settlement Officer recorded an order on May 9, 1955, admitting the appellant's claim and directed the Divisional Forest Officer to inform within 15 days whether he wanted the land on payment of compensation. The respondents contended that this order was passed without any notice to them and in their absence. They became aware of the order only on April 24, 1956, when another order was recorded stating that the claim had been admitted and further action would be taken under Section 11(2)(iii) of the Act.

2. Whether the Appeal Filed Under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act was Within the Prescribed Time Limit:
The State of Uttar Pradesh, through the Divisional Forest Officer, filed an appeal on July 20, 1956, under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 prescribes a time limit of three months from the date of the order for presenting an appeal. The appellate tribunal held that since the order dated May 9, 1955, was not delivered in the presence of the parties or after giving them notice, the period of limitation should run from April 24, 1956, when the respondents came to know of the order. The High Court upheld this view, stating that it would be unjust to compute the limitation from the date recorded by the Forest Settlement Officer if the parties were not informed.

3. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in Setting Aside the Order of the Forest Settlement Officer:
The appellant argued that the appellate tribunal set aside the order dated May 9, 1955, though the appeal was directed against the order dated April 24, 1956, which was not an appealable order. The High Court held that the appeal was indeed against both orders, as the prayer in the petition of appeal referred to 'orders' in the plural and described them as orders admitting the claim of the respondent. Thus, the appellate tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside the order dated May 9, 1955.

4. Validity of the State Government's Order on the Revision Petition Filed by the Appellant:
The appellant had filed a revisional application to the State Government under Section 18(4) of the Act against the order of the appellate tribunal, which the State Government rejected on March 9, 1960. The appellant's writ petition did not contain a prayer for quashing or setting aside this order. The High Court did not consider the validity of this order, and the appellant was not allowed to raise this issue at this stage.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs. The Court affirmed that the appeal under Section 17 was within the time limit as the period of limitation should run from April 24, 1956, when the respondents came to know of the order. The appellate tribunal had jurisdiction to set aside the order dated May 9, 1955, and the appellant could not challenge the findings of fact or the State Government's order on the revision petition at this stage.