No Suit For Injunction Maintainable Against Notifications Declaring Land As Reserved Forest Under Indian Forest Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that suit for permanent injunction under Section 229B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 is not maintainable against the notification issued under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring a land as reserved forest area.

The Court held that such notifications can only be challenged before the Forest Settlement Officer as per the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1927.

“….once notification under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Act of 1927 were issued and published in official gazette, it will be deemed that they have been issued in accordance with law after following due procedure of law and it could not have been held illegal or inoperative without challenge to the notifications in appropriate proceedings but not in a suit for permanent injunction,” held Justice Rajnish Kumar.

Factual Background

Counsel for appellant, Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri, submitted that the State Government issued a notification in 1960 under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act,1927 regarding the disputed land declaring it as reserved forest. Accordingly, it was argued that the respondent had no right and title over the land.

In 1977, respondent filed suit for permanent injunction claiming rights on the disputed property under Section 229 B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950. The suit was allowed despite the notifications. Civil appeal filed against the order was also dismissed.

Counsel for appellant argued that the order allowing the suit was without jurisdiction as no right or title could be given to the respondents as the same was barred by Section 27 A of the Act of 1927. It was further argued that the boundaries of the property in suit was no defined. The suit was filed by four people, however, none of them had disclosed their shares. Accordingly, it was argued that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

Per contra, counsel for respondents argued that only a photocopy of the notification was produced without there being any proof of the notification actually being published. Thus, it was argued that the order of the Trial Court was legal. Further, it was argued that in similar fact scenario, second appeals filed by the Department had been dismissed, thus, this appeal was also liable to be dismissed.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that in the similar orders relied upon by the respondent, no substantial questions of law have been framed. The Court observed that at the time of hearing, the Court can hear the parties on any other substantial question of law on being satisfied that it is involved in the case under Section 100 of CPC. The Court held that once substantial questions of law have been framed by the Court, order cannot be passed on merits without hearing both parties.

The Court held that once substantial questions of law have been framed after hearing both parties, appeal cannot be dismissed merely on grounds that similar appeals have been dismissed.

Considering the scheme of the Indian Forest Act,1927, the Court held that once notification under Section 4 of the Act is issued, all claims shall lie before the Forest Settlement Officer who exercises the power of civil court adjudicating a suit. After finalization of proceedings, notification under Section 20 of the Act is passed declaring the land to be reserved forest.

The Court further observed that Section 27A of the Act which was introduced by way of amendment in 1965 provides that no order under the Chapter can be questioned in any Court of law. The Court held that since the notifications are published in official gazettes, they are deemed to published in accordance with law.

“The Act of 1950 was promulgated for abolition of the zamindari system which involves intermediaries between the tiller of the soil and the State in Uttar Pradesh and for acquisition of their rights, title and interest and to reform the law relating to land tenure consequent on such abolition and acquisition and to make provision for other matters connected therewith……Therefore, all the estates in State of U.P. after notification under the said Act vested in State and unless anybody acquired any right or title under the said Act, he is not entitled to claim any right over any land.”

The Court observed that the forest department being a necessary party was not impleaded in the suit. Merely making State of UP a party without specifying through which department was not sufficient, held the Court.

The Court also held that being a Sirdar does not give the right or title to a land over the land. A Sirdar is merely a tenure holder and property is vested in the State, accordingly, the Court held that the land could be declared as a reserved forest under the Act of 1927.

The Court relied on State of U.P. v. Kamal Jeet Singh, wherein a division bench of the Allahabad High Court had held that “the Forest Settlement Officer has the powers of a civil court and once the notification under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Forest Act has been issued, it attains finality and except revision before the State no authority has jurisdiction to determine the rights as contained in Section 27-A of the Forest Act. Thus, the revenue authorities could not have determined the rights under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950.”

The Court held that no permanent injunction can be sought against the owner of a property. Since State was the owner of the land in dispute after the promulgation of the UPZALR Act, the decree passed by the Trial Court was not sustainable.

“Thus, once the provisions of the Indian Forest Act have not been challenged and are valid, the operation of the same cannot be ignored. Consequently, once the notification was issued under Section 4 followed by Section 20 of the Act of 1927, the natural consequence would be that the land in dispute has been declared as forest land and nobody has right on the said land.”

Further, the Court held that no objections were raised before the Forest Settlement Officer after issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.

“Therefore it had become final after declaration of reserve forest under Section 20 and under Section 27(A) of the Act of 1927 and the order under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was passed in a suit filed after issuance of the notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, which could not have been done. Similarly the injunction could not have been granted by the civil court.”

Accordingly, the second appeal filed by the Forest Department was allowed.

Case Title: Divisional Forest Officer North Kheri v. Surjan Singh And Others [SECOND APPEAL No. - 756 of 1982]

Appearances: Vimal Srivastava, Additional Advocate General assisted by S.K. Khare, Standing Counsel for appellant and Satendra Nath Rai, counsel for respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order