Asfaq Husain vs The State of U.P.

M.P. Mehrotra, J.—This petition arises out of the proceedings under the Indian Forest Act.

The facts, in brief, are these: A notification was issued u/s 4 of the aforesaid Act. Objections were filed by the two Petitioners u/s 6. Thereafter u/s 7 the Forest Settlement Officer made his inquiry. Then he passed an order u/s 41 of the Act. Thereafter an appeal was preferred by the State; the same was allowed and the objections of the Petitioners before me filed u/s 7 were dismissed. Now, the Petitioners have come up in the instant petition and in support thereof, I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Learned Counsel contended before me that the appellate court was not right in holding that there was no evidence to show that there was a graveyard on the two plots in question, namely, plots Nos. 1348 and 1355. He further contended that the appellate court was also wrong in thinking that as the two plots containing the graveyard had vested in the State under the U.P. Act. No. 1 of 1951 and thereafter the management of the said land had been given to the Gram Samaj, therefore, the Petitioners did not have the locus standi to file objections u/s 6 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. In my opinion, it is not necessary to examine this latter contention. It should be seen that 1 am exercising a limited jurisdiction in these writ petitions. A finding of fact has been recorded by the appellate court that the Petitioners did not lead any evidence in support of their claim. It is true that the inspection note of the Forest Settlement Officer was there and thereafter the Supervisor Kanungo also submitted his report. It may be held on that basis that there was material on the record to show that certain graves were there but this fact alone will not/entitle the-Petitioners to claim that their objections should be allowed. It should be seen that the nature of the right has to be established -by the objectors. In the instant case, the Petitioners did not lead any evidence to show that they had any customary right to bury their dead in the particular plots. Merely showing that there are graves in certain areas will not entitle the objectors to establish their claim unless they lead further evidence to establish the nature of the right which they claimed to inhere in them. The appellate court has observed that there was no documentary or oral evidence whatsoever from the side of the Petitioners. In this view of the matter, one cannot predicate anything about the nature and type of the graveyard which existed on the plots in question and who were the persons who were entitled to bury their dead in such graveyards even if they existed there.

In this view of the matter, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.