9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 1447 - SC - Indian LawsVesting of land under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - it is contended that in terms of Section 4 of the Abolition Act, all rights, title and interest of all intermediaries including the forest had vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh - HELD THAT - 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 under Section 4 of the Act. 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. In a judgment reported as STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. VERSUS KUMAON STONE CRUSHER AND ORS. 2017 (9) TMI 1901 - SUPREME COURT , 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 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 - 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. The order of the High Court cannot be sustained in law. The same is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Vesting of land under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. 2. Notification and declaration of land as protected forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 3. Validity of lease grants by the Gaon Sabha. 4. Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 5. Impact of revenue records on land title and ownership. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Vesting of Land under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950: The judgment addresses the vesting of land in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to a notification dated 11.10.1952 under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Abolition Act). The notification declared that 162 acres in Village Kasmandi Khurd would not vest in the Gaon Samaj, thereby vesting all rights, title, and interest in the State. The court noted that no general or special orders were issued to transfer this land to the Gaon Sabha or any local authority, affirming its vesting with the State. 2. Notification and Declaration of Land as Protected Forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927: The court examined the notification issued on 23.11.1955 under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Forest Act), declaring the land as protected forest. The notification met the statutory requirements by specifying the boundaries and appointing a Forest Settlement Officer. The court emphasized that once a notification under Section 4 is issued, no rights can be acquired over the land except by succession or a written contract with the Government, thereby invalidating any subsequent claims or transfers. 3. Validity of Lease Grants by the Gaon Sabha: The court scrutinized the leases granted by the Gaon Sabha to the lessees in 1966. It held that these leases were invalid as they were granted after the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act, which barred the acquisition of rights over the land. The lessees failed to provide any written agreement executed by or on behalf of the Government, rendering the lease grants void. 4. Jurisdiction of Consolidation Authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: The court addressed the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Authorities, highlighting that they cannot override statutory notifications issued under the Forest Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation's order dated 08.07.2004, which corrected the revenue records to reflect the land's status as forest land, was upheld. The court referenced precedents, asserting that consolidation authorities must respect notifications under the Forest Act, akin to a civil court decree. 5. Impact of Revenue Records on Land Title and Ownership: The judgment clarified that entries in revenue records do not confer title or have presumptive value on ownership. The court emphasized that the revenue record is not a document of title, and any entry without supporting documents, such as a written lease agreement under the Forest Act, is inconsequential. The lessees' reliance on revenue records to claim rights was dismissed, reinforcing that statutory notifications take precedence. In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the Deputy Director of Consolidation's decision, affirming the land's status as protected forest and invalidating the lessees' claims based on revenue records.
|
