Forest Land Ownership Dispute: Supreme Court Upholds State’s Claim Over Encroached Land

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag vs. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Through LRs & Ors., affirming the State’s ownership over forest land and setting aside the High Court’s order favoring private claimants. The judgment reaffirms that forest land notifications under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927 override private claims based on erroneous revenue entries.

Background of the Case

The dispute centered on land in Kasmandi Khurd village, Lucknow, where claimants asserted tenancy rights based on revenue entries, challenging the State’s claim over the land. The State of Uttar Pradesh had issued notifications under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and later under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, declaring the land as forest property.

The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the claimants, setting aside the Deputy Director of Consolidation’s order, which had restored the land’s status as forest land. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that once land is notified as forest, no private claims can be entertained.

Petitioner’s Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh)

The State contended that:

A notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 had vested the land with the State, barring any private claims.
A subsequent notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 designated the land as protected forest.
Section 5 of the Forest Act bars the acquisition of any rights over notified forest land.
The claimants’ tenancy rights were based on erroneous revenue entries and lacked legal backing.
The High Court erred in overturning the Consolidation Officer’s findings.

Respondent’s Arguments (Private Claimants)

The claimants argued that:

The land had been allotted to them by the Gaon Sabha (village authority).
They had been in possession for several years and had been cultivating the land.
The government failed to take possession after the notifications, allowing them to establish occupancy rights.
The High Court rightly ruled in their favor based on long-standing possession.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Does a Forest Notification Override Private Claims?

The Court reiterated that once land is notified as forest under Section 4 of the Forest Act, no further private rights can be acquired over it.

The judgment stated:

“Section 5 of the Forest Act bars the accrual of any new rights on land notified under Section 4. Once forest land is declared, private claims based on revenue entries cannot override statutory notifications.”

2. Can Revenue Entries Confer Ownership Rights?

The Supreme Court ruled that revenue records do not confer ownership and cannot override statutory notifications.

“Entries in revenue records do not establish ownership. They are meant for fiscal purposes and do not confer title over government land.”

3. Was the High Court’s Order Justified?

The Court found that the High Court had ignored statutory notifications and relied solely on revenue entries, which were erroneous.

The judgment concluded:

“The High Court’s order is legally unsustainable as it fails to consider statutory provisions and misinterprets revenue records as ownership documents.”

Judgment and Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the Deputy Director of Consolidation’s ruling in favor of the State.

The ruling reinforces that:

Statutory notifications declaring land as forest take precedence over revenue records.
Private parties cannot claim rights over notified forest land.
Revenue records alone do not confer ownership.

This judgment serves as a crucial precedent in cases involving land tenure disputes and forest land conservation.

Judges: The judgment was delivered by Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian.

Petition Result: Allowed

Petitioner Name: Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag.
Respondent Name: Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Through LRs & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Hemant Gupta, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 05-10-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: prabhagiya-van-adhik-vs-arun-kumar-bhardwaj-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-05-10-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category