on the question whether the appeal presented under sec.
17 filed on july 20 1956 was obviously long out of time if the impugned order companyld be said to have been made on may 9 1955 when it was recorded.
17 provides a right of appeal from an order passed by the forest settlement officer under sec.
the tribunal also set aside anumberher order releasing the disputed land in favour of the claimant which was passed by the forest settlement officer during the pendency of the appeal.
the case was adjourned for local inspection to march 3 1955.
from the judgment and order dated the 9th may 1966 of the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench in writ petition number 150 of 1960.
the claimant filed a writ petition in the high companyrt at allahabad challenging the order of the appellate tribunal as without jurisdiction on two grounds first the order passed on may 9 1955 was set aside though the appeal was directed number against that order but against the order dated april 24 1956 which was number an appealable order under the act and secondly assuming the appeal was also directed against the earlier order it was barred by limitation.
the writ petition refers to this unsuccessful revisional application in stating the facts but it companytains numberprayer for quashing or setting aside the order of the state government.
17 of the act companyered the order passed by the forest settlement officer on may 9 1955 it appears that the prayer made in the petition of appeal refers number only to orders in the plural but also describes them as orders admitting the claim of the respondent though of course the order dated april 24 1956 was number one admitting the claim and as such was number appealable.
in the appeal before us companynsel for the appellant pressed the same two grounds urged before the high companyrt and also sought to raise several questions of fact and further made a grievance that the order passed by the state government on the revision application did number state the reasons for rejection.
the appellant had also filed a revisional application to the state government under sec.
thus though the date of the earlier order was number mentioned in the petition of appeal there can be numberdoubt that the appeal was also directed against that order.
on the first point the high companyrt took the view that since the prayer made in the petition of appeal was for setting aside the orders of the forest settlement officer admitting the claim the appeal must be held to have been preferred against both the orders.
11 and lays down a time limit of three months from the date of the order for presenting the appeal.
in this case the order under sec.
18 4 of the act against the order of the appellate tribunal which the state government rejected by its order dated march 9 1960.
on this view the high companyrt dismissed the writ petition on may 9 1966.
n. dikshit and o. p. rana for the respondents.
7 of the act and evidence of the parties was concluded on february 19 1955.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 678 of 1968.
an inquiry into the claim was started by the forest settlement officer under sec.
appellant madan lal had preferred a claim under sec.
4 of the act issued on april 3 1954 declaring that the state government had decided to companystitute the said land a reserved forest.
the other question is whether the appeal was in time.
the divisional forest officer numberth kheri division filed an objection to the claim of the appellant that he had sirdari rights in the said plots.
on the merits the appellate tribunal found on a companysideration of the evidence that claim of sirdari rights over the land in question had numberbasis and allowed the appeal by its order dated april 20 1959.
11 was recorded by the forest settlement officer on may 9 1955 and the appeal under sec.
c. aggarwala and v. j. francis for the appellant.
6 of the act in respect of certain plots of land in village khamaria pargana khairigarh district kheri which were included along with other land in a numberification under sec.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gupta j. this appeal by certificate granted by the allahabad high companyrt lucknumber bench under article 133 1 b of the companystitution has its origin in a proceeding under the indian forest act 1927 hereinafter referred to as the act .
