IMPORTANT POINT
Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other is not only against the propriety and polity but is also contrary to basic concept of law.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 300-C.P.C. 1908-Section 79 and Order 1 Rules 9 and 10-Suits by or against Govt.-Order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record-Challenged by Chief Conservator of Forests in writ petition before High Court and as appellant before Supreme Court-Whether Chief Conservator of Forest as the petitioner/appellant in the writ petition/appeal is a mere misdescription for the State of A.P.? (No) or whether it is a case of non-joinder of the State of A.P.-A necessary party? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court is not only against the propriety and polity as it smacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to the basic concept of law which requires that for suing or being sued, there must be either a natural or a juristic person. (Para 14)
       Held thereafter : The Chief Conservator of Forests as the petitioner can neither be treated as the State of Andhra Pradesh nor can it be a case of misdescription of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The fact is that the State of Andhra Pradesh was not the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable in law. The High Court, had it deemed fit so to do, would have added the State of Andhra Pradesh as a party; however, it proceeded, in our view erroneously, as if the State of Andhra Pradesh was the petitioner which, as a matter of fact, was not the case and could not have been treated as such. As the writ petition itself was not maintainable, it follows as a corollary that the appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forest is also not maintainable. (Para 16)
       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 110-Burden of proof as to ownership-Possession proved by Pattedars -Long and peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question by the late Raja-Appellant-State could not prove its title to the lands-High Court confirming the order of Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record of trial Court that suit lands were patta lands of the Pattedars-Appeal against -Whether High Court was right? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed.
       Held : We have gone through the judgement of the trial court as also of the High Court. We have perused the notification issued under Section 29 of the Forest Act. It shows that as many as fourteen villages are enumerated therein. Villages Asadpur and Malachintapalli do not figure in the notification. Even otherwise also, the notification does not show anything more than the fact that the Government has formed a protected forest area. That by itself does not extinguish the rights of the private owners of the land nor does it show that the lands in question vest in the State. A plain reading of the statutory order passed by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act on December 5, 1981 places the matter beyond doubt that the suit lands were patta lands of the Pattedars. For all these reasons, in our view, the High Court has committed no error in confirming the said order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record and the judgment and decree of the trial Court. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.-These two appeals are from the common judgement of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition (C) No. 3414 of 1982 and Appeal Suit No. 2291 of 1986 dated 24th January, 1989.

2. The appeals arise on the same facts and one set of the parties is common. The subject matter of litigation is an extent of acres 2423.37 in Jatprole Jagir, Kollapur Taluk, Mahboobnagar District in the erstwhile the Nizam s State of Hyderabad. After the accession of the Nizam s State of Hyderabad with the Union of India, the Andhra Pradesh (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ) came into force on September 20, 1949. Under that Regulations, all Jagirs, including the Jatprole Jagir, stood abolished from that date and their administration stood vested in the State. Raja S.V. Jagannadha Rao was the last Jagirdar. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are his legal representatives [hereinafter referred to as the Pattedars ]. It is the case of the pattedars that when the State took over the Jagir, the Forest Department of the State took under its control the forest land, measuring acres 1,20,824. However, the lands comprised in Survey No. 11 of Asadpur village measuring acres 1523 and Survey No. 168 of Malachinthapalli village measuring acres 9000 continued to remained in the possession of the Raja as his patta lands. Soon thereafter, Notification No. 282 under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Forest Act, 1355 Fasli [for short, the Forest Act ] was issued on December 4, 1950. The notification enumerated fourteen villages comprising of an extent of 93, 030 acres of Kollapur taluk Mahboobnagar District, which was named as Kollapur range. It appears that a notification under Section 30 of the Forest Act was also issued but that notification is not on record. In the year 1953, re-survey of the erstwhile Jagir was conducted. The lands in question, namely, Survey No.40 (old) was assigned Survey No. 11 and Survey No. 241 (old) was assigned Survey No. 168; however, the finalisation of the survey was done in 1962. The Pattedars filed an application under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli [for short, the Land Revenue Act ] to rectify the mistake noted in the settlement record pursuant to the said re-survey. The mistake was alleged to be that the name of the Khatedar was not shown against the said survey numbers which were shown as Mahasura (protected). The District Collector, after conducting the necessary enquiry and on a joint inspection in which the Land Record Assistant and the Forest Range Officer participated and in which working plan was produced showing the area as the patta of the late Jagirdar, passed an order on April 25, 1966 directing rectification of the settlement record. Based on the said order, the Director of Settlement rectified the records and issued a supplementary setwar on May 11, 1966.

3. Under the Forest Act, a person who transports forest produce is required to obtain transit permit. Though in the past, the Pattedars were transporting forest produce on obtaining transit permits, it was, however, denied to them on their application made on October 14, 1966. It is worth noticing that the Tehsildar of those villages recommended granting of transit permits showing the lands as patta lands. It was for the first time that the Forest Department appeared to have taken the plea that the lands in question were forest lands and the Chief Conservator of Forest (Appellant, No.1 in Civil Appeal No. 8580 of 1994) expressed that the lands in question were forest land and doubted they were patta lands of the Pattedars. The doubt expressed by the Chief Conservator of Forest in regard to the nature of the said lands led to a further probe into the matter as to whether the lands comprised in the aforementioned survey numbers were treated as part of Jagir at the time of taking over the Jag

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 198

IMPORTANT POINTFiling of a writ petition by one department against the other is not only against the propriety and polity but is also contrary to basic concept of law.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Filing of a writ petition by one department against the other is not only against the propriety and polity but is also contrary to basic concept of law.