IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, LUCKNOW

Appeal No. /2017

1. Mrs. Harcharan Kaur Gill wife of Major Jai Singh Gill, Rio, House
No. 2418, Sector-D. Pocket-2, Vas ant Kunj, New Delhi.

2. Shamsher Singh Gill son of Major Jai Singh Gill Rio, House No.
2418, Sector-D. Pocket-2, Vas ant Kunj, New Delhi.

3. Ranbir Singh Gill son of Major Jai Singh Gill, Rio, House No. 9,
Adarsh Colony, Barewal Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

4. Mahavir Singh Gill son of Sri Ranbir Singh Gill, Rio, House No. 9,
Adarsh Colony, Barewal Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

5. Mrs Urvashi Gill Dhingra wife of Sri Sandeep Dhingra, Rio House
No. 2418, Sector-D. Pocket-2, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

..... Appellants

Versus

1. State of U.P., through District Magistrate Lucknow.

2. U.P. Forest Department, through Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh

Van Prabhag, 21/75, Indira Nagar, Lucknow.

3. Forest Settlement Officer I City Magistrate Lucknow.

..... Respondents

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 17 OF INDIA FOREST ACT AGAINST

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED .04.03.2017 PASSED BY LEARNED
FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER MR. RAJESH KUMAR IN CLAIM
PETITION NO. 01/2012 (MAJOR JAI SINGH GILL VS. STATE OF U.P.,
THROUGH COLLECTOR LUCKNOW & OTHERS.

1. That by means of the instant appeal the appellants are challenging

the legality and validity of the order dated 04.03.2017 passed by
the Learned Forest Settlement Officer, Lucknow in case No.
01/2012 (Major Jai Singh Gill Versus State of U.P &Others). The
copy of the order dated 04.03.2017 is annexed herewith as
Annexure No. 1 to this Appeal.
2. That while passing the order dated 04.03.2017, the Learned Forest
Settlement Officer has failed to consider the facts and the legal
position of the case as well as has not applied judicial mind and
has also failed to consider the provision of the Constitution of
India, Forest Act, Zamidari Abolition Act and Indian Evidence Act,
inspite of the fact that the power of the Civil Court is vested in the
Learned Forest Settlement Officer but still he has failed to consider
the same.
3. That while passing the order dated 04.03.2017, the Learned Forest
Settlement Officer has failed to consider the facts and the legal
position of the case as well as has not applied judicial mind and
has also failed to consider the provision of the Constitution of
India, Forest Act, Zamidari Abolition Act and Indian Evidence Act,
in spite of the fact that the power of the Civil Court is vested in the
Learned Forest Settlement Officer but still he has failed to consider
the same.
4. The facts of the case are: That the claimant Major Jai Singh Gill
served in India National Army and thereafter Azad Hind Fauz of
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose and after independence joined U.P.
Police thereafter sometimes in the year 1952 he was posted as
Commandant Provincial Armed Constabulary.
5. That the claimant had taken asami rights land bearing Khasra no.
950 area 2 Bigha 11 Biswa 951 area 25 Bigha a 5 Biswa 10
Biswani 988 area of 10 Bigha 16 Biswa 863/ 1 area 28 Bigha 8
Biswa 10 Biswani 873 area 5 Bigha 7 Biswa and 10 Biswani, 934
area 3 Bigha 8 Biswa, 949 area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa, 948/2 area 2
Bigha 7 Biswa, 976 area 59 Bigha 15 Biswa, 1028 area 57 Bigha 1
Biswa, 942 area 1 Bigha 4 Biswa 15 Biswani and 1062 area 49
Bigha total area 246 Bigha 6 Biswa 16 Biswani or 61.684 hectares
(hereinafter referred as Land) situated in Village; Khatola Pargana
Bijnor Tehsil and District Lucknow (U.P.) from their owner
/Zamindar (Proprietary) Sri Jagdutt Singh Sri Shivdutt Singh and
Sri Sadhu Singh. That the actual boundaries of the land of the
claimant/ appellants are:

East : Bhagu Khera

West : Neeva and Memora

North : Makhdumpur Kaithi Neeva

South : Memora and Dhanua sand Border

New Land Khasra no, Old nos. Area in Bighas
(belongs to appellants)
759 950 2-11-0
760 951 25-5-10
761 988 10-16-0
668 Ga 863/1 28-8-0
670 873 5-7 -10
735 934 3-8-0
758 949 1-4-0
757 948/2 2-7-0
785 976 59-15-0
820 1028 57 -1-0
749 942 1-4-15
919 etc 1062 49-0-0

The copy of the Khewat of 1332 Falsi are annexed herewith as Annexure
No. 2 to this appeal.

6. That on 28.04.1952 the claimant had taken the said Land by way
of patta and the claimant was entered as Morusi Kashtkar
(hereditary tenant) under the provision of U. P. Tenancy Act which
was applicable at that point of time, the patta were duly verified by
the Thesildar on 14.05.1952. The copies of the duly translated
patta dated 28.4.1952 are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 3 to
this appeal.
7. That the name of the claimant was mutated in revenue records,
the same was recorded in khasra Zkhatauni as sirdar. The copy of
the khatauni of fasli year 1359, 1360-1361 and 1363-1365 are
annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4 to this appeal.
8. That the claimant/ appellants who was in Government Job was
posted outside of Lucknow and the Revenue Authorities illegally
without affording opportunity of being heard expunged the name of
the claimant/ appellant and after coming to know about the
expunction of his name, the claimant/appellant applied restoration
of his name in revenue records. By way of order dated 23.02.1959
passed in case no. 33/59 the Tehisldar restored the name of the
claimant/ appellants in the revenue records and had fixed the
revenue of Rs. 450.30 New paisa and he was recorded as Sirdar by
way of order dated 23.02.1959 passed in case no. 33/59. The
copyof the khatuani 1369 to 1371 fasli year is annexed herewith as
Annexure No. 5 to this appeal.
9. That the claimant/ appellants was regularly paying the land
revenue w.e.f. 1359 Fasli and a notice under section 7 sub section
of Large Land Holding Tax Act 1957 was issued to the appellants,
his grandfather, his son and his wife and by way of judgement and
order dated 07.01.1959 passed in case Large Land Holding Tax No.
 1 of 1958-1959 State Vs Jai Singh Gill. Assessing Authority
disposed off the matter and issued a cgr tksr vkdkj i= 4- The

copy of the order dated 07.01.1959 and c gr tksr vkdkj i= 4

are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 6 and 7 respectively to
this appeal.
10. That, it is, also relevant to mention here that from the perusal of
order dated 07.01.1959, it reveals that the land was holding of the
claimant/ appellants, but the bear fact of ownership was ignored
by the authorities deliberately. The Land in question is still in
possession of the appellants; it is, relevant to mention here that
after order dated 4.3.2017 the respondents threatened to demolish
the appellants house and destroyed some standing crops over the
land. The appellants have taken the photographs of the spot. The
copies of the photographs are annexed herewith as Annexure No.
8 to this appeal.
11. That in year 1992 the Forest Department start Answering in
peaceful possession of the claimant, then the claimant had
preferred a case under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code.
The case was registered as 15/8/1992-93, before the Learned
Deputy Collector (Revenue), Lucknow, in which the Learned Lower
Court had directed for commission report. The commission report
was filed on 09.03. 1994. From the perusal of the commission
report it reveals that the claimant/ appellants are in possession
over the land and doing farming. The true type copy of the
commission report is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 9 to this
appeal.
12. That during the proceedings the appellants came to know
regarding the Notification no. 617/ 14-1950 dated 11. 10. 1952
and Notification No. 6828/14-806-55 dated 22.11.1955. The
claimant procured the notifications issued by State under section
117 of Zamidar Abolition Act, from the perusal of the notifications
dated 22.11.1955 it reveals that the State Government had notified
532 Acre of land in Khatola Village. From the notification dated
22.11.1955 issued by the Forest Department, it reveals that only
202 Acres of land was notified to be declared Reserve Forest. It is
pertinent to point out here that vide notification dated 11.10.1952,
the 532 Are land was notified and only 202 Acre land was taken for
reserved forest vide notification dated 22.11.1955, meaning
thereby 310 Acre was land not taken by the respondent for
reserved forest. The copy of Notification no. 617/14-1950 dated
 11.10.1952 and Notification no. 6828/14-806-55 dated
22.11.1955 are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 10 respectively
to this writ petition.
13. That from the perusal of the notification dated 22.11.1955 , it
reveals that in notification the department mentioned in Colum V
{ks=Qy xtV ds vuqlkj ,dM esa 532 Acres and in Colum VI
{ks=Qy tks fy;k x;k gS ,dM esa is 202 Acre and the boundaries
mentioned in the notification are:

East: Jaiti Khera

West: Village J aiti Khera

North: Mati Jungle

South: Bhagu Khera Nala.

That the land of the claimant/ appellants does not fall in the said
boundaries.

14. That from the perusal of the map, Survey of India, it reveals that
the locations of the land of appellants as well as land notified for
Reserve Forest are situated at two different places and have
different boundaries. The copy of map of Survey of India is
annexed herewith as Annexure No. 11 to this appeal.
15. That the appellants also procured the charge note by which the
Forest Department claims to have take the possession of the land.
From the perusal of charge notes/inventory, it reveals that the
land is transferred only on papers which were manufactured by
the respondents because on a single charge note the land is
handed over to the department by the patwari and on the charge
notes the dates are mentioned of year 1958 and 1965, this itself
creates a doubt that when the claimant/ appellants were in
possession and paying land revenue regularly then why the
department did not take any signatures from the claimant. It is
also pertinent to point out here that whenever the possession is
given or taken from a person who is in possession the signatures
are essential and important ingredients on the panchanama
Zinventory etc. but in the instant case the respondents have
manipulated the rules as per their convenience. The copy of the
charge notes are annexed herewith as Annexure No. 12 to this
appeal.
16. That after collecting the documents, in the year 2004 the claimant
had preferred the suit under section 229 B of Zamidari Abolition
 Act for declaration of Bhumidhari rights over the land. The case
was registered as suit no. 16/24/30/04-05 (Major Jai Singh Gill
Vs State of U.P.). before the Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate
Lucknow. The Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate Lucknow had
dismissed the case vide order dated 22.08.2005, while passing the
order the Learned Magistrate has failed to consider the merit of the
case. The copy of the order dated 22.08.2005 is annexed herewith
as Annexure No. 13to this appeal.
17. That feeling aggrieved of the order dated 22.08.2005, the claim
ant/ appellants had preferred an appeal before the Additional
Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow, the appeal was
registered as Appeal No. 334/05-06 under section 331 of Zamidari
Abolition Act (Major Jai Singh Vs State of U.P.).
18. That the Learned Additional Commissioner Lucknow Division,
Lucknow, vide its order dated 16.02.2009 had quashed the order
and remanded the case back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to
decide the same as fresh, while remanding back the Learned
Additional Commissioner had formulated certain issues and
directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide those issues with
speaking order. The copy of the order dated 16.02.2009 is annexed
herewith as Annexure No. 14 to this appeal.
19. That the case was remanded back and in 2011 the claimant/
appellants moved an application under section 229D to grant an
injunction. The Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated
28.02.2011 had rejected the claimant application. It is relevant to
mention here that the Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has also
ignored and violated the directions given by the Learned Additional
Commissioner, Lucknow Division Lucknow in its order dated
16.09.2009. The copy of the order dated 28.02.2011 is annexed
herewith as Annexure No. 15 to this appeal.
20. That during the proceedings of case u/ s 229 B of Zamindari
Abolition Act, the Lekhpal of circle Memora (i.e. Memora, Khatola,
Bhagukhera) had given statement on 19.05.2005 and during cross
examination on 15.07.2005 he has stated that Major Jai Singh Gill
is in possession and on Gata No. 761 Major Jai Singh Gill has
constructed his house and he is doing farming over the land which
includes the entire khasra numbers as stated above. From the
above statement it reveals that the appellants were in possession
in the year 2005 itself and today also the land is in appellants
possession. The typed copy of the statement and cross examination
of Lekhpal is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 16 to this appeal.
21. That feeling aggrieved from the order dated 28.02.2011 the
claimant/ appellants preferred revision under section 333 of
Zamidari Abolition Act, the same was registered as Revision No.
382/2010- 2011 before the Learned Additional Commissioner
(Judicial) Lucknow Divisional, Lucknow. The Additional
Commissioner (Judicial) Lucknow Divisional, Lucknow vide order
dated 03.07.2011 had dismissed the revision as not maintainable.
The copy of the order dated 03.07.2011 is annexed herewith as
Annexure No. 17 to this appeal.
22. That feeling aggrieved from the order dated 03.07.2011 and
28.02.2011, the claimant/ appellants preferred a appeal no.
404/2012 (MS) (Major Jai Singh Gill Vs State of U.P.) before the
Honble High Court, Lucknow. The Honble High Court vide its
order dated 19.01.2012 directed the Forest Settlement Officer to
decided the claim petition in accordance with Rules. The copy of
the order dated 19.01.2012 is annexed herewith as Annexure No.
18 to this appeal.
23. That the claimant had preferred claim petition registered as case
no. 1/2012 before the Forest Settlement Officer/City Magistrate,
Lucknow on the grounds that the land in question has not notified.
As a question of fact the boundaries of the claimant and the land
notified are different and on a ground, that no notice nor any
opportunity of hearing has been ever accorded to the claimant,
further on the ground that the land notified is 202 Acres and in the
Revenue Records/Khatuani, the forest declared themselves a
owners of 532 Acre. The question arises that from where the Forest
Department became the owner of the access 330 Acre of land that
was never transferred in the notification. The claimant has also
raised the question that the Forest Department has not done
notification under section 20 of the Forest Act, which is mandatory
before any land can be declared a reserved forest. The copy of the
claim petition is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 19 to this
appeal.
24. That the Forest department filed objections in which no specific
answer was given by them. The forest Department has admitted in
their paragraph 19 and 20 of the objections that no notification
under section 20 of the Forest Act has been done by the
Department which is mandatory as per law. The forest Department
has also failed to show whether any notice has been ever served on
the claimant
n their paragraph 19 and 20 of the objections that no ,

. ~

notification under section 20 of the Forest Act has bee don by

the Department which is mandatory as per law. ~The Forest

Department has also failed to show whether any notice has been

ever served on the claimant/ appellants and has also fRilp.o to

(>

..91) J-

.f~tVCl~P

--

c) While passing the order the Learned City Magistrate has

not considered the fact that the appellants were never

notified in the notification, ? L Pono..- r\Jr du:v.

d) The boundaries mentioned in the notification are

different, from the actual boundaries of the claimant

land.

e) The Learned Forest Settlement Officer has also failed to

consider that the respondent department has not issued

any notification/ taken steps under section 20 of the

Act, which is mandatory in nature.

f) The India Forest Act has a statutory force and the same

cannot be violated or manipulated on someones whims.

32. That the Learned Forest Settlement Officer has observed that the

land is covered by section 8 of Zamidari Abolition Act. The

Learned Settlement Officer failed to consider that the appellants

land does not fall in the ambit of section 8 of Zamidari Abolition

Act. The patta was executed in favour of appellants on

28.04.1952 and if we go by the reading of section 8, its says the

Act comes into effect from the date of vesting and the date of

vesting of Uttar Pradesh Zamidari Abolition Act was 1 st July

1952, hence the above vesting date is after the date on which

pattas were executed.

33. That the Learned Forest Settlement Officer has not given any

observation that how the land was mutated in the name of

Forest Department inspite of the fact that the section 20

c/y:>~ proceedings have not been done till date. He has also failed
to

observe in respect with the ifference of boundaries and the

validity of the ownership and service of notices on the

appellants.

34.
That while deciding the claim petition, the Learned Forest

settlement Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction and dismissed

the appellants claim on the ground of notification under section

117 and section 8 of Zamidari Abolition Act. It is pertinent to

point out here that Forest Settlement Officer is not an

appropriate authority to decide this issue. It is a bear fact that

the claimant/ appellants nam were there in revenue records

the Forest Department(~~t given any notice or opportunity

of hearing to the appellants, which is illegal ann Rrhitr::lrv ::lnn

In the instant matter the State has acted in a very illegal

manner and the Learned Forest Settlement Officer has ignored

the facts and exceeded his jurisdiction to decide the matter, the

same cannot sustain in the eye of law.

35. That the Learned Forest Settlement Officer has failed to consider

the provision of section 11 of the India Forest Act which very

specifically says that "power to acquire land over which right is

claimed". Section 11 (2) (3) very specifically says "Ill proceed to

acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894). It is pertinent to point out

here that the Hon ble Apex Court holds that the acquisition

proceedings should be time bound, in the instant matter 65

years have lapsed and the proceedings are not yet completed.

36. That the Learned Settlement Officer has also failed to consider

the provision of Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

37. That the Learned Forest Settlement Officer has also not

considered the provision of the section 3 of the Indian Forest Act

as well as the entire provision of the India Forest Act and the

provision of the Indian Evidence Act.

38. That feeling aggrieved and having no other alternative and

efficacious remedy the appellants preferring instant appeal

before this Hon ble Court, inter-alia amongst on the following

grounds:

Grounds:

A. Because the impugned order dated 04.03.2017 is passed in

a very illegal and arbitrary manner and without

application of mind.

B. Because while passing the order dated 04.03.2017 the

Learned Forest Settlement Officer has failed to consider

the provision prescribed under law and the order is based

on summary.

C. Because the appellants land falls under the ambit of

Section 3 of India Forest Act, hence cannot be declared as

Reserved Forest.
F. Because the appellants name duly recorded in the Revenue

Record but even not a single notice has been severed on

the appellants by the Forest department.

G. Because the State has not served any notice on the

claimant/ appellants regarding the notifications is] s 4 of

Indian Forest Act and has not given any opportunity of

hearing to the claimant/ appellants.

H.

Because from the perusal of the notification, it reveals that 1 (

the appellants land never otifie~notifications. ...,.)

Because the Forest Department has not followed the

procedure7~tion 4 (1) (c) of Indian Forest Act, neither

they have tried to inquire into a 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.

J. Because the notification not published In the news paper

which is mandatory.

K. Because the boundaries mentioned in the notification of the

proposed land to be acquired and the boundaries of the

appellants land are at different locations and land situated

separately.

L. Because the Forest Department has not completed the

procedure of notification under section 20 of India Forest

Act.

M. Because notification under section 20 of India Forest Act is

t7 I.

mandatory in nature. ~, "("l ~)W COJr r..,j., (" -L" I.,

N. Because the Learned Forest Settlement Officer has not

considered the bear fact regarding the difference of

boundaries.

O. Because the Learned Forest settlement Officer has ignored

the map of Survey of India which clarifies the boundaries.

R. Because the Learned Forest Settlement Officer exceeded his

jurisdiction while rejecting the matter on the ground of

section 8 of Zamidari Abolition Act.

S. Because the Learned Forest Settlement Officer is not an

appropriate authority to decide the matter in the light of

section 8 of Zamidari Abolition Act.

T. Because the Learned Forest Settlement Officer is authorized

to decide the illegality, if any, committed by the Forest

Department and whether right of the owner are affected by

the notification or not and whether the notices are duly

served on the owner of the land and whether the land in

question falls in the ambit of section 3 of India Forest Act.

U. Because until and unless the procedure of notification

under section 20 of India Forest Act is completed the land

cannot be {:on,3,ider as a Reserve Forest.

I"

V. Because the respondents have violated the prOVISIOn of

Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

W. Because the impugned action of the respondents violates

the provision Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of

India.

Relief:
---

--

In view of the aforesaid facts and grounds, the Hon ble

court may kindly quash the order dated 04.03.2017

passed by Learned Forest Settlement Officer in case no.

1/2012 (Major Jai Singh Gill Vs State of U.P. as contained

in Annexure No. 1). Further it, is, requested to quash the

Notification no. 617/14-1950 dated 11.10.1952 and

Notification no. 6828/14-806-55 dated 22.11.1955 (as

contained in Annexure No. 2 and 3), and not to interfere in

the peaceful possession of the appellants over the land, in

the interest of justice.

It is also to direct the respondents to record the name

of the appellant in the relevant revenue records.

Award the cost of this appeal.