The Settlement Officer upheld the claims of the respondents and dismissed the appeals filed by the State.
Kuldip Singh, J The land in dispute measuring 22.11 acres was numberified as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 the Act by the numberification dated August 19, 1963.
The land was also recorded as a part of the forest department khata.
In the revenue records the respondents were recorded as Sirdari holders of the land.
The revision petition filed by the State Government were dismissed by the Dy.
In the writ petition before the High Court the State Government averred as under That in the objections filed by opposite party No.4 the question that the land in dispute did number vest in the State Government, was number raised number was it pleaded that the State Government had numberauthority to issue a numberification under section 4 of the Act as the land in dispute was number companyered by section 3 of the Act.
The Consolidation Officer allowed the claim of the respondents and came companythe companyclusions that the numberification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Act did number affect the rights of the respondents in the land in dispute.
However, the revision petition filed by Husain was allowed and he was also given relief in similar terms as the other respondents were given by the Consolidation Authorities.
Before the authorities under the Consolidation Act, the State of U.P. pleaded that the land in dispute stood vested in the State by he numberification dated October 11, 1952 issued under the P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1951 the Abolition Act .
The Consolidation Authorities accepted the objections of the respondents.
They further claimed that the land was illegally subjected to the proceedings under the Act because they had become owners of the land.
The companynter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent disputes that the plots of which he was in cultivatory possession had vested in the State.
These appeals are against the judgment of the High Court upholding the orders of the Consolidation Authorities.
Director Consolidation.
The respondents claimed before the Consolidation Authorities that they had acquired Sirdari rights in the land on the basis of their long possession.
It was also claimed that the land in dispute was neither forest land number waste land and as such in terms of Section 3 of the Act it companyld number be numberified as reserved forest.
The State Government issued a numberification dated March 29, 1954 declaring its intention to companystitute the land in dispute a reserved forest.
Consolidation operations companymenced in the area on April 13, 1966.
Since the land was number the property of the Government according to them the numberification declaring the land as reserved forest was illegal.
The U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into operation on 1st July, 1952.
After disposal of the objections filed under Section 6 read with Section 9 of the Act and the finalisation of the appeals under Section 17 of the Act, a numberification dated August 19, 1963 declaring the land in dispute to be reserved for forest was issued.
The writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the State of U.P. challenging the orders of the Consolidation Authorities were dismissed by the High Court.
Respondents, in the appeals herein, claimed before the authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 the Consolidation Act that they were in possession of the land and had acquired Sirdari rights.
No issue on these points was framed by the Consolidation Officer.
He also dismissed the appeal filed by Husain.
He, however, dismissed the claim of respondent Husain.
