Revenue record alone, does not create any right, title or interest over forest land: Supreme Court

Read Judgment: Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag vs. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, October 7, 2021: The Supreme Court has observed  that revenue record is not a document of title and therefore, even if the name of the lessee finds mention in the revenue record but such entry without any supporting documents of creation of lease contemplated under the Forest Act is inconsequential and does not create any right, title or interest over forest land claimed to be in possession of the lessee as a lessee of the Gaon Sabha.

A Division Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian observed that when a land vests in the Forest Department by virtue of notification published under a statute, it is the lessee who had to assert the title on the forest land by virtue of an agreement in writing by a competent authority. 

The lessee would not be entitled to any right only on the basis of an entry in the revenue record, added the Bench. 

The observation came pursuant to an appeal against the Order of the High Court whereby the Court had set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, wherein, the revenue entry of Khasra Nos. 1576 and 1738 was ordered to be corrected in the name of Department of Forest and the claim of rival claimants were set aside.

The main crux was that the claimants had asserted rights over the forest land on the basis of entries in the revenue record. 

The background of the case was that the Governor in the exercise of powers u/s 117 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 had issued a notification on October 11, 1952, u/s 4 of the Act as per which 162 acres of area in Village Kasmandi Khurd was not to vest with the Gaon Samaj. 

Later, on November 23, 1955 a notification was issued u/s 4 of the Forest Act, 1927 for inviting objections in respect of the land that formed a part of the notification and pursuant to this a proclamation was carried out on April 28, 1968 u/s 6 of the Forest Act, 1927.

Accordingly, the Gaon Sabha (local management committee) on May 15, 1966, and on December 26, 1966 put lessee (legal heirs of Arun Bhardwaj) into possession of 7 bighas and 5 bighas of land respectively from Khasra No 1576. 

The Forest Department challenged this grant of lease before the Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow but remained unsuccessful. The Department however, succeeded before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow. Although the Board of Revenue dismissed the lessee’s revision, it decided to take a fresh decision after impleading the local management committee who had granted lease to the lessee on Goan Sabha’s behalf. 

When the six yearly Khatuni was prepared for the period 1380 fasli to 1388 fasli, the barren land which could be made cultivable including Khasra no. 1576 was recorded to be transferred in name of Gaon Sabha village Kasmandi Khurd to Department of Forest. 

Since the lessee’s name appeared for the first time in khatauni prepared for the year 1407 fasli till 1412 fasli, for rectifying the revenue record from the lessee’s name to that of the Forest Department, the Forest Department initiated proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1934 which however, came to be dismissed. 

Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Director Consolidation in revision directed for correction of the revenue entry of Khasra Nos 1576 and 1738 in the name of Forest Department and set aside the claim of rival claimants. 

The Allahabad High Court however, set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence present appeal. 

After considering the arguments, the Apex Court observed that the State Government has the jurisdiction to declare a protected forest, if the land is the property of the Government over which proprietary rights are exercised. 

The land measuring 162 acres was the property of the Government in terms of the notification dated October 11, 1952 and the lessees were not in possession of any part of the land at the time of issuance of such notification u/s 4 of the Forest Act. 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 u/s 4 of the Act, added the Court.

“Section 5 of the Forest Act bars that no right shall be acquired in or over the land comprised in notification u/s 4 of the Forest Act, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the Government. Once the notification dated Nov 23, 1955 was published u/s 4 of the Forest Act, there could not be any transfer of right in the land so notified in favour of the lessee by the Gaon Sabha”, observed the Division Bench. 

The Bench said that it is obvious that the Forest Settlement Officer has the powers of a Civil Court and his Order is subject to appeal and finally revision before the State Government. 

Therefore, once a notification u/s 20 of the Act declaring a land as reserve forest is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person come to an end and are no longer available, concluded the Bench. 

Hence, the Apex Court set aside the order of the Apex Court and restored the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated July 8, 2004.