R. K. Agrawal, J.
1. Both these special appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.2,2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 25084 of 1998 whereby the learned single Judge had directed the authorities to correct the revenue records and deliver the possession according to the decision given by this Court in the matter of the petitioner within a month and also to pay compensation to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. While the State of U. P. through the Collector, Bijnor and the Prescribed Authority (Ceiling)/ Additional District Magistrate (F&R;) Bijnor are the two appellants before us in Special Appeal No. 545 of 2000, the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest U. P., Lucknow is the appellant in Special Appeal No. 550 of 2000. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order dated 17.2.2000 passed by the learned single Judge, both the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows :
The respondent writ petitioner namely Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd. which is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at 22, Chitranjan Avenue, Kolkata in the State of West Bengal, (hereinafter referred to as the Company) claims itself to be the bhumidhar of a vast track of land in Tehsil Nagina District Bijnor. Proceedings under the provisions of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') was initiated and after considering the objections filed by the Company, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31.5.1962 declared an area of 8446-3-0 bighas or 5466 acres of land as surplus. On an application moved by the Collector, Bijnor seeking review of the said order, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30.7.1976 set aside its earlier order dated 31.5.1962 and declared the company to be not entitled for any compensation. He directed for issuance of a fresh notice in respect of two villages namely Madpuri and Dholkhand. The order dated 30.7.1976 was challenged in appeal filed under Section 10 of the Ceiling Act. The learned IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor vide Judgment and order dated 2.9.1977 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, whereupon the company challenged the aforementioned orders before this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5191 of 1977 which was allowed vide Judgment and order dated 5.7.1982 and the orders impugned in the said writ petition were quashed. It appears that against the judgment and order dated 5.7.1982 passed by this Court, the State of U. P. and other affected parties filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was subsequently converted into Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 1983. However, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15.1.1996 for want of prosecution. In the meantime it appears that consequent upon the amendment in the Ceiling Act by U. P. Act No. 18 of 1973, which reduced the extent of land holding by a person to 7.30 hectares of irrigated land, i.e., 18 acres and withdrawal of certain exemptions, fresh notice was issued to the company and vide order dated 29.11.1976 the Prescribed Authority after excluding the 18 acres irrigated land declared 1067.53 acres of land as surplus in villages Madpuri and Dholkhand. This order has become final between the parties as it has not been challenged in appeal or in any other forum. However, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the company is that the aforesaid order dated 29.11.1976 is only consequential to the order dated 30.7.1976 which has already been set aside by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5191 of 1977 decided on 5.7.1982 and thus, there was no necessity to challenge the said order. So far as the land held by the company in other villages is concerned the same has been declared to be a Reserved Forest Area under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forest Act'). A notification was issued on 16th February, 1966 under Section 4(1)(a) of the Forest Act by the State Government declaring its intention to constitute the land shown in the schedule given in the said notification as Reserved Forest which included the land claimed by the company. Subsequently after considering the objections, the State Government issued a Notification dated 27.7.1970 under Section 20 of the Forest Act declaring the land mentioned in the schedule to the said notification as Reserved Forest Area. The land of the company had been included therein. Both these notifications Issued under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act has become final as the company had not challenged the same in any court of law.
3. It appears that after the dismissal of the civil appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the company requested the district authorities to make necessary entries in the revenue records and to pay compensation in accordance with the order dated 31.5.1962. When nothing was done, it approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25084 of 1998 which had been finally disposed of by a learned single Judge by a judgment and order dated 17.2.2000. The said judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge is under challenge in the present special appeals.
4. To set the record in order it may be mentioned here that some proceeding at the Instance of the company was taken by the district authorities for excluding the land held by it under the orders dated 1.5.1962 passed by the Prescribed Authority from the Reserved Forest Area declared under Section 20 of Forest Act and for that purpose the Forest Settlement Officer had agreed to issue corrigendum. The company approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23625 of 2000 which was dismissed as premature with the observation that the State Government will take appropriate action in terms of the proposal in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. However, the State Government had not issued any corrigendum on the basis of the proposal sent by the Forest Settlement Officer, Bijnor.
5. We have heard Sri Vinod Swarup learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the appellant in Special Appeal No. 550 of 2000, Shri Sanjay Goswami learned standing counsel for the appellant in Special Appeal No. 545 of 2000 and Shri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned senior advocate assisted by Shri Vikram Nath, Advocate for the company in both the special appeals.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the land in question has been declared as included in the Reserved Forest Area by issuance of notification dated 27.7.1970 which notification has become final between the parties, the learned single Judge was not Justified in directing the district authorities to correct the revenue record according to the decision given by this Court in the matter of the petitioner and also to pay compensation. He submitted that the company did not file any objection pursuant to the notification issued on 16.2,1966 under Section 4 of the Forest Act and the land claimed by it having been declared as included in a Reserved Forest Area, it is not entitled for any compensation. He further submitted that with the publication of notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act in the Official Gazette by the State Government the land shall become a Reserved Forest Area in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the said Act and, therefore, the company is not entitled to claim any right, title and interest over the land which has been declared as a Reserved Forest Area. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. : AIR1996SC2432 . He further submitted that the Ceiling Act underwent drastic amendments in the year 1973 whereby the earlier position of exempted land holdings was given away and the area of land holding was also reduced to 18 acres (7.3 hectares). According to him the Prescribed Authority had declared the company to be entitled to hold only 18 acres of land vide order dated 29.11.1976 which order had become final. Thus, in any event even if the revenue records are to be corrected, it has to be corrected on the basis of the order dated 29.11.1976 and the company is not entitled for any compensation.
7. Shri V.' K. S. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel, however, submitted that the order dated 29.11.1976 had been passed on the basis of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 30.7.1976 allowing the review application which order has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 5.7.1982. The order dated 29.11.1976 being consequential order requires no separate challenge and it fell to the ground once the order dated 30.7.1976 had been quashed. He further submitted that the order dated 1.5.1962 had become final between the parties and, therefore, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in law in directing the district authorities to correct the revenue record according to the said order and also to deliver possession and to pay compensation accordingly. He further submitted that the notification issued under Sections 4 and 20 of the Forest Act was a nullity and of no consequence and even if the company has not challenged the same before this Court or in any court of law, no advantage or benefit can be derived by the appellants. He further submitted that under Section 3 of the Forest Act as amended by U. P. Act No. 27 of 1965 w.e.f. 23.11.1965, the State Government cannot constitute any land comprised in any holding or grove or in any village abadi as Reserved Forest. Since the land in question vide order dated 1.5.1962 had been held to be the holding of the company, there was no question of it being declared as Reserved Forest. He further submitted that the mandatory procedure provided under the Forest Act has not been followed and, therefore, the declaration of Reserved Forest is void. According to him the Forest Department has no separate identity and it is a part of State of U. P., thus the order dated 31.5.1962 passed by the Prescribed Authority is binding upon the Forest Department also. Surplus land declared under the order dated 31.5.1962 was given by the State Government to the Forest Department and, therefore, there was no independent right in favour of the Forest Department. In support of his submission he relied upon an unreported decision of this Court in Om Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., Special Appeal No. 6982 of 1971, decided on 19.3.1980 wherein this Court has held that Section 3 of the Forest Act covers Forest land and waste land irrespective of whether the same is comprised in a holding or not and other lands if the same are not comprised in a holding. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Mahant Avaidh Nath : AIR1977All192 , wherein this Court has held that once Section 3 does not apply Sections 6 7 and 8 are equally not attracted and any proceedings taken under the Act are ultra fires and the order passed was a nullity. He further relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1999 ALJ 1673, wherein this Court has held that land which is part and parcel of a holding of a tenure holder cannot be subject-matter of notification for creating Reserved Forest under Sections 3to20 and notification declaring such land as Reserved Forest area is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation : AIR1996SC2432 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that whether a land is covered by Section 3 of the Forest Act or not could only be determined on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act.
8. According to Shri Chaudhary the appeal filed by the Forest Department is not maintainable as it is only part and parcel of the Government of U. P. and has no separate identity. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Marian Gopal Singh v. State of U. P. : AIR1971All350 , wherein this Court has held that the forest department is bound to obey the decision passed by the Revenue Court because it is a department of the State Government. He also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Maharaja Sir Pateshwari Stngh v. State of V. P., 1979 RD 142, wherein this Court has held that even if one department of the State was a parry to the proceeding, it meant that the State itself was a party and not that one of its department alone will be treated to be a party and not the State. Shri Chaudhary further submitted that it is now well-settled that the declaration under Section 20 of the Forest Act is a decree of civil court as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra) and if the decree is without jurisdiction it can be ignored as being nullity. According to him the entire proceedings under Section 4 of the Forest Act is a nullity as no declaration under Section 4 could have been issued by the State Government as the land in question was excluded from the provisions of Section 3 of the Forest Act. He relied upon the decisions in the case of State of U. P, v. Assistant Director of Consolidation and Ors. (supra), Om Singh. and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. (supra). He further relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. : [1955]1SCR117 . Shri Chaudhary further submitted that new facts cannot be raised in special appeal for the first time. According to him the notification under Sections 4 and 20 of the Forest Act have been placed before this Hon'ble Court for the first time in the special appeal filed by the State of U. P. It was never raised earlier either in the review application dated 12.4.1971 or in appeal before the District Judge or in the Writ Petition No. 5191 of 1977 or in the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or also in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25084 of 1998 giving rise to the present special appeals. He relied upon the following decisions :
(1) Tika Ram and Sons Ltd. v. Its Workman (Bishambar Dayal) : (1960)ILLJ514SC .
(2) State of U. P. v. Nawab Hussain : [1977]3SCR428 .
(3) Nirod Baran Banerji v. Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh : [1980]2SCR1043 ,
9. So far as the order dated 29.11.1976 is concerned, Shri Chaudhary submitted that the holding mentioned in the order dated 31.5.1962 included land in 11 villages measuring 8874 bighas 3 biswas. In the review application dated 12.4.1971, the State alleged that the holding of the petitioner was only in 2 villages measuring 2605 bighas 7 biswas and not in 11 villages measuring 8874 bighas 3 biswas as held in the 1962 proceedings. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30.7.1976 allowed the review application and directed for issue of notices to the petitioner treating its holding to be in only 2 villages measuring 2605 bighas 7 biswas. The notice under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act dated 7.10.1976 was Issued in pursuance of the order dated 30.7.1976 including the holding of the petitioner in 2 villages as held in the order dated 30.7.1976. The Prescribed Authority vide ex parte order dated 29.11.1976 determined the ceiling area as per the notice dated 7.10.1976 and declared 2562 bighas 1 biswa 10 biswansi a s surplus and left 43 bighas 5 biswas 10 biswansi with the tenure holder. The Prescribed Authority while passing the order dated 29.11.1976 has dealt with only 2605 bighas 7 biswas in two villages as held in the order dated 30.7.1976. In case the contention of the appellant is to be accepted then the Prescribed Authority in the notice and the order of 1976 should have taken either the total holding measuring 8874 bighas 3 biswas of the 11 villages or should have taken 428 bighas which was left with the tenure holder vide order dated 31.5.1962. As is apparent from the record the Prescribed Authority took into consideration the area of 2 villages only measuring 2605 bighas 7 biswas as held vide order dated 30.7.1976. So far as the reduction in ceiling limit under the Ceiling Act by subsequent amendment of 1973 and 1976 is concerned, he submitted that merely because in the order dated 29.11.1976 passed by the Prescribed Authority the ceiling limit has been reduced from 40 acres (as in 1962) to 18 acres (as in 1976), it would not mean that the proceedings were taken afresh after the coming of the Amending Acts. For proceedings to be independent of the order dated 30.7.1976, the area for determination will have to be either what the tenure holder originally held, i.e., 8874 bighas 3 biswas in 11 villages or 428 bighas which had been left with him vide order dated 31.5.1962. For proceedings under the Amending Act of 1973 or 1976, would mean redetermination in the light of the amendments in the ceiling limit and the exemptions in respect of the holding of the petitioner as on the date of the Amending Act in the present case but for the order dated 30.7.1976 the holding of the petitioner could not be 2605 bighas 7 biswas. Therefore, there can be no other inference except that the order dated 29.11.1976 was passed pursuant to the order dated 30.7.1976. He further submitted that the order dated 29.1.1976 being a consequential in nature based upon the order dated 30.7.1976, once the order dated 30.7.1976 has been set aside the subsequent order dated 29.11.1976 automatically fell to the ground. In support thereof he relied upon the following cases :
(1) Keshari and Ors. v. Bhawani Rai and Ors., AIR 1923 All 456,
(2) Shiromant Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Amrttsar and Ors. v. Raja Shiv Ratan Dev Singh and Ors. : AIR1955SC576 .
(3) Kumar Sudhendu Narain Deb v. Mrs. Renuka Biswas and Ors. : AIR1992SC385 .
and submitted that the said order is void and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. According to him notice dated 7.10.1976 purported to have been Issued under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act had not been served upon the company which had its registered office at 22, Chitranjan Avenue, Kolkata. It was sent at the address mentioning only Nagina Tehsil whereas it was to be sent at the registered office of the Company. Since the entire proceedings have been taken without service of notice, the order dated 29.11.1976 is void and without jurisdiction and liable to be ignored in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shantanu Kumar v. State of V. P. and Ors., 1979 AWC 585 (FB). Shri Chaudhary further submitted that the State had changed its stand regarding status of the order dated 29.11.1976. It did not place its order on the record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5191 of 1977 or on the record of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which shows that it treated as a consequential order and not an independent order. Had it been an independent order there was no need for it to file special appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 5.7.1982 passed by this Court. In the end he submitted that since compensation has not been paid by the State so far the respondent writ petitioner is entitled for compensation with interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from the date of taking possession, i.e., o n 14.11.1962 and in support thereof he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birdhichand Misri Lal Gothi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : AIR1989SC1064 .
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we find that it has now come on record that the land in dispute was within a Forest Area belonging to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Initially one Shri Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh of Kashipur was an intermediary of the land which was declared surplus land of the said Raja. However, no compensation under the Act No. 1 of 1951 was worked out. On objection being filed by the Raja that he had been an intermediary and had an income of Rs. 45,588.00 annually from the forests of these villages before the date of vesting, the Compensation Officer vide order dated 22.9.1953 accepting the contention amended the compensation rolls. The appeal filed by the State of U. P. against the order dated 22.9.1953 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.11.1964. In the proceedings under the Ceiling Act in respect of the company the order passed on the review application had been set aside by this Court only on the ground that the rights of the petitioner had been determined by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 31.9.1962 and it was not open to the Prescribed Authority to set aside the said order on the ground that the notice issued to the petitioner was an invalid notice. It is also not in dispute that a notice dated 7.10.1976 was issued under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act. The only objection is that it was not sent to the registered office of the company at Calcutta but it had been seen at the village address mentioning Naglna Tehsil. The order dated 29.11.1976 had been passed pursuant to the notice dated 7.10.1976 redetermining surplus area held by the company. Thus, it cannot be said that it is a consequential order to give effect to the order dated 30.7.1976 allowing the review application. It is an independent order having been passed to redetermine the surplus land after amendment in the Celling Act by the Amending Acts of 1973 and 1976. Admittedly the said order has not been challenged by the company. In a collateral proceedings it cannot be ignored altogether unless it is set aside. This having not been done, the order dated 29.11.1976 has to be given effect to and any mutation/correction in the revenue record is to be done taking into consideration the subsequent developments.
11. In the case of Keshari and Ors. (supra) this Court has held that the decision of a court not appealed from, does not operate as res judicata where the appellate court passes an order for fresh trial substantially reversing the unappealed order in an appeal from a different decision in the same suit. In the case of Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar (supra) the Apex Court has held that where the High Court, after passing a final order has remanded the case to the trial court for proceeding in accordance with law and the decree of the trial court after remand is passed between the date of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the order of the High Court and the date on which leave was granted, the decree of the trial court, even if not appealed against, must. In the circumstances, be taken to be subject to the result of the appeal to the Supreme Court and cannot be said to be conclusive so as to prevent the Supreme Court from dealing with the appeal and setting aside or modifying the judgment of the High Court and making a fresh order of remand to that Court itself. In the case of Kumar Sudhendu Narain Deb (supra), the Apex Court has held that the auction sale held in execution of final decree passed in suit for mortgage money can be set aside in Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the displacement on the preliminary decree on which the final decree was based.
12. In view of the conclusion arrived at by us the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of his plea that the order dated 30.7.1976 having been set aside, the subsequent order dated 29.11.1976 automatically falls does not apply to the facts of the present case.
13. In the case of Shantanu Kumar (supra), the Full Bench of this Court has held that under Rule 8 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Rules service of notice is preliminary to the acquisition of jurisdiction to proceed in the matter and decide whether the land ostensibly held in the name of the petitioner could be declared as surplus land and if no notice is served the proceedings are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed.
14. Even if It is assumed that the order dated 29.11.1976 has been passed without proper service still the said order unless it is set aside has to be given effect to.
15. So far as the question that Forest Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh is one of the department of State and any order passed in judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings relating to another department where the State is a party, is binding on all departments is concerned there cannot be any two opinion on it. In the case of Madan Copal Singh (supra) this Court has held that in asking for a declaratory decree from the Revenue Court the petitioner's father (therein) was aggrieved from the notification issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Forest Act, the State Government was a necessary party and the Forest Department was bound by the decree passed by the Revenue Court because it is a department of the State Government.
16. Similarly in the case of Maharaja Sir Pateshwari Prasad Singh of Balrampur, Dharam Karya Nidhi (supra) this Court has held that even if one department of the State is a party to the proceedings, it meant that the State itself was a party and not that one of its department alone will be treated to be a party and not the State. However, in the present case, we find that the notifications issued by the State Government under the Forest Act had not been challenged by the company in any court of law and only the proceedings under the Ceiling Act have been challenged. The judgment/order under the Ceiling Act are thus binding on all the departments of State of U. P. and it cannot be said that the orders passed under the Forest Act will have no effect.
17. So far as the objection of Sri Chaudhary that no new documents or evidence can be filed for the first time in appeal is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that it is within the discretion of the Court whether or not to permit a party to adduce file additional evidence in appeal. In the case of Tika Ram and Sons Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court has held that this Court does not admit additional evidence in appeals under Article 136. It further held that it was the duty to adduce evidence at the proper stage and if it has not been done, it cannot be allowed to be produced at this stage. In the case of State of U. P. v. Nawab Hussain (supra) the Apex Court has applied the principles of res judicata to writ proceedings also. In the case of Nirod Baran Banerji (supra), the Apex Court has held that in view of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 8 and Order VIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant would be barred from raising the point for the first time before this Court or even before the High Court. The aforesaid principles are well settled. However. In the present case, we find that as the Forest Department was not a party in the writ petition, the respondents could not bring to the notice of the Court the proceedings/ orders under the Forest Act and, therefore, in order to do complete Justice between the parties and to prevent any miscarriage of justice, we are of the opinion that the various notifications and orders under the Forest Act should be taken on record particularly when finality has been attached to them under the Forest Act.
18. The question is what is the effect of the notification Issued under Sections 4 and 20 of the Forest Act. As already mentioned herein above notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was Issued on 16.2.1966. The company did not file any objection under Section 6 of the Forest Act. The notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act was Issued on 27.7.1970 declaring the forest area mentioned in the notification dated 16.2.1966 with some exception to be Reserved Forest. If the contention of the company that no notification under Section 4 could have been Issued in respect of holding is accepted to be correct then the purpose of Inviting objections under Section 6 and enquiry under Section 7 was not at all necessary. Sections 6 and 7 of the Forest Act read as follows :
'6. Proclamation by Forest Settlement Officer.--When a notification has been Issued under Section 4, the Forest Settlement Officer shall publish in the local vernacular in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the land comprised therein, proclamation--
(a) specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and limits of the proposed forest ;
(b) explaining the consequences which, as hereinafter provided, will ensue on the reservation of such forest ; and
(c) fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation, and requiring every person claiming any right mentioned in Section 4 or Section 5 within such period either to present to the Forest Settlement Officer a written notice specifying or to appear before him and state the nature of such right and the amount and particulars of the compensation (if any) claimed in respect thereof.
7. Inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer.--The Forest Settlement Officer shall take down in writing all statements made under Section 6 and shall at some convenient place inquire into all claims duly preferred under that section, and the existence of any rights mentioned in Section 4 or Section 5 and not claimed under Section 6 so far as the same may be ascertainable from the records of Government and the evidence of any person likely to be acquainted with the same.'
19. Section 9 of the Forest Act provides that rights in respect of which no claim has been preferred under Section 6 and of the existence of which no knowledge has been acquired by inquiry under Section 7, shall be extinguished unless, before the notification under Section 20 is published, the person claiming then satisfies the Forest Settlement Officer that he had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim within the period fixed under Section 6. Admittedly the company did not prefer any claim under Section 6 of the Forest Act, thus, the rights if any which it had been claiming stood extinguished. Section 23 of the Forest Act provides that no right of any description shall be acquired in or over a reserved forest except by succession or under a grant of contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government or some person in whom such right was vested when the provisions of the Forest Act referred to above it is seen that the proceedings under the Forest Act are independent proceedings by itself and no person has any right in the land if he does not file his claim under Section 6. Upon a notification issued under Section 20 of the Act, the right extinguishes and no right can be acquired over reserved forest except with a contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government.
20. In the case of Kiran Singh (supra) the Apex Court has held that it is a fundamental principle that a decision passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.
21. In the case of State of U. P. v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Bareilly and Ors., 1999 ALJ 1673, this Court has held as follows :
'15. On the date the notification under Section 4 of the Forest Act was issued, the land in dispute admittedly was not Forest land or waste land but it was part and parcel of the holding of the contesting respondents, except the land which was recorded in the name of 'Gram Sabha' and 'Ceiling Department'. The land in dispute could come under the term 'other land' but for the same exception has been carved out in the aforesaid section. The authorities below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact which are based on relevant evidence on record, that the land in dispute was recorded in the holdings of the contesting respondents. The said land, therefore, could not be subject-matter of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Forest Act. The notifications if they purported to declare the said land as forest land, were ultra vires of the Act and without jurisdiction. The said notifications, in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan : [1955]1SCR117 , are liable to be ignored. The same view has been consistently taken in the following and many other decisions :
Raghanath Singh v. State of U. P., (1961) AWR 532 (HC) ; Jang Bahadur v. State, 1971 All WR 599 (HC) ; State of U. P. v. Mahant Avaidh Nath : AIR1977All192 ; Ratan Singh v. State of U. P., 1979 All LJ 1216.'
22. In the case of State of U. P. v. Mahant Avaidh Nath (supra) this Court has held that once Section 3 of the Forest Act does not apply, Sections 6 7 and 9 are equally unattracted and any proceedings taken under the Act are ultra vires and orders passed a nullity.
23. In the case of Om Singh (supra) this Court has held that Section 3 covers forest land and waste land irrespective of whether the same is comprised in a holding or not and other lands only if the same are not comprised in a holding, The Division Bench did not go into the question whether a declaration under Section 20 could be ignored as a nullity if the land were shown to be beyond the scope of Section 3 of the Forest Act.
24. In the case of State of U. P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra) the Apex Court has held that the notification is binding on the consolidation authorities in the same way as a decree of the civil court.
25. The aforementioned decisions have laid down that if the land does not fall under Section 3 of the Forest Act, the proceedings taken under the said Act would be without jurisdiction and nullity. The Apex Court in the case of Government of Orissa v. Ashok Transport Agency, 2OOO (9) SCC 28. while considering the transactions which are void and voidable, held as follows :
'50. Thus, the expressions 'void and voidable' have been the subject-matter of consideration on innumerable occasions by courts. The expression 'void' has several facets. One type of void acts, transactions, decrees are those which are wholly without jurisdiction, ab initio void and for avoiding the same, no declaration is necessary, law does not take any notice of the same and it can be disregarded in collateral proceeding or otherwise. The other type of void act, e.g., may be transaction against a minor without being represented by a next friend. Such a transaction is a good transaction against the whole world. So far as the minor is concerned, if he decides to avoid the same and succeeds in avoiding it by taking recourse to appropriate proceeding the transaction becomes void from the very beginning. Another type of void act may be one which is not a nullity but for avoiding the same, a declaration has to be made. Voidable act is that which is a good act unless avoided, e.g., if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated, it is voidable as the apparent state of affairs is the real state of affairs and a party who alleges otherwise is obliged to prove it. If it is proved that the document is forged and fabricated and a declaration to that effect is given, a transaction becomes void from the very beginning. There may be a voidable transaction which is required to be set aside and the same is avoided from the day it is so set aside and not any day prior to it. In cases, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would be obviously voidable.'
26. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Government of Orissa (supra) to the instant case, we are of the opinion that unless the orders passed under the Forest Act are specifically challenged and are set aside, they cannot be ignored and have to be given effect to.
27. The provisions of the Forest Act came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of V. P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
'9. The crucial question for consideration, however, is whether the Consolidation Authorities have the Jurisdiction to Government Order behind the notification under Section 20 of the Act and deal with the land which has been declared and notified as a reserved forest under the Act. It is necessary, therefore, to examine the scheme of Chapter II of the Act. Section 3 provides that the State Government may constitute any forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce to which the Government is entitled, a reserved forest. Section 4 provides for the issue of a notification declaring the intention of the Government to constitute a reserved forest. Section 5 bars accrual of forest rights in the area covered by the notification under Section 4 after the issue of the notification. Section 6, inter alia, gives power to the Forest Settlement Officer to issue a proclamation fixing a period of not less than three months from the date of such proclamation and requiring every person claiming any right mentioned in Section 4 or Section 5 within such period, either to present to the Forest Settlement Officer a written notice specifying or to appear before him, and state the nature of such right and the amount and particulars of the compensation (if any) claimed in respect thereof. Section 7 gives power to the Forest Settlement Officer to investigate the objections. Section 8 prescribes that the Forest Settlement Officer shall have the same powers as a civil court has in the trial of a suit. Section 9, inter alia, provides for the extinction of rights where no claim is made under Section 6. Section 11(1) lays down that in the case of a claim to a right in or over any land, other than a right of way or right of pasture, or a right to forest produce or water course, the Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part. In the event of admitting the right of any person to the land, the Forest Settlement Officer, under Section 11(2), can either exclude such land from the limits of the proposed forest or come to an agreement with the owner thereof for the surrender of his rights or proceed to acquire such land in the manner provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 17 provides for appeal from various orders under the Act and Section 18(4) for revision before the State Government. When all the proceedings provided under Sections 3to19 are over the State Government has to publish a notification under Section 20 specifying definitely the limits of the forest which is to be reserved and declaring the same to be reserved from the date fixed by the notification.
10. It is thus, 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. The Act is a complete Code in itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring and notifying a reserve forest. Once a notification under Section 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. The notification is binding on the Consolidation Authorities in the same way as a decree of the civil court. The respondents could very well file objections and claims including objections regarding the nature of the land before the Forest Settlement Officer. They did not file any objection or claim before the authorities in the proceedings under the Act. After the notification under Section 20 of the Act, the respondents could not have raised any objection qua the said notification before the Consolidation Authorities. The Consolidation Authorities were bound by the notification which had achieved finality.'
28. The notification issued under Section 4 and Section 20 of the Forest Act have not been challenged by the company even though it had the knowledge of the said notification as it has mentioned the said notification in paragraph 5 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23625 of 2000 filed before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to publish the corrigendum notification of the land in question under Section 4 of the Forest Act in the official Gazette. Since the said notification has not been challenged by the company, the said notification has to be given effect to and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of V. P. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra) all the rights in the land claimed by any person comes to an end and are no longer available once a notification under Section 20 of the Act declaring a land as Reserve Forest is published. The said notification is binding on all the parties in the same way as a decree of civil court. In this view of the matter, the submissions made by Shri Chaudhary that the notification issued under Section 20 is without jurisdiction and void and nullity cannot be accepted.
29. In view of the foregoing discussions we are of the considered view that judgment and order of the learned single Judge directing correction of the revenue record and giving possession of the land and for paying compensation in terms of the order dated 1.5.1962 cannot be sustained and hereby set aside.
30. In the result both the special appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and Impugned order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.