Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
STATE OF GOA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NARAYAN V. GAONKAR & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL No.1866 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 19683 of 2012)
Decided on : 04-03-2020
(a) Goa, Daman and Diu (Record of Rights and Register of Cultivators) Rules, 1969 - Rules 5 and 6(6) - Land in question recorded in name of Forest Department - Respondents’ ancestors filing dispute staking their claim to ownership of the land - Later withdrawing their claim - Case closed without any decision in dispute case - After withdrawal of dispute case names of respondents’ ancestors added in records as owners along with Forest department - Without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to be continued. (Para 18)
(b) Goa, Daman and Diu (Record of Rights and Register of Cultivators) Rules, 1969 - Rule 6(6) - Plaintiffs not disclosing relevant facts in the suit - Courts below rightly held that plaintiff completely failed to justify the continuance of their names against survey No.11/1. (Para 19)
(c) Property law - Title - Matriz document - Not a document of title. (Para 24)
(d) Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 - Section 14 - Suit filed by the plaintiffs for deleting the name of Forest Department from survey No.11 which suit dismissed - Name of Forest Department therefore continues - Counterclaim filed by State deserved to be allowed and the name of the plaintiffs-respondents from survey No.11/1 deserved to be struck off. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1995 was filed by Shri Narayan V. Gaonkar, Shri Shivram V. Gaonkar and Shri Rama S.F. Dessai.
The defendants claimed that entire suit property is in possession and belongs to the Forest Department and as such the name of the Forest Department has been rightly recorded in occupant's column in survey No.11/1 and the plaintiffs nor any person have any right over the suit property.
The Civil Judge held that plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are owners of the suit property, however, Civil Judge upheld the plaintiffs' possession. Issue No.2 was answered against the defendant. A First Appeal was filed by the defendants in the High Court praying that judgment of the learned Civil Judge be quashed and set aside to the extent that learned Civil Judge held that respondents (plaintiffs) were in possession and the judgment insofar as it dismissed the counter claim of the appellants, it was prayed that the High Court may delete the name of the respondents in occupant column in Form Nos.I & XIV and also hold that respondents (plaintiffs) are not in possession of the suit land.
High Court dismissed the appeal filed by appellants.
Finding of the Court:
Counterclaim filed by State deserved to be allowed and the name of the plaintiffs-respondents from survey No.11/1 deserved to be struck off.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J.
This appeal has been filed by the State of Goa questioning judgment of High Court of Bombay at Goa dated 30.06.2011 dismissing the First Appeal No. 115 of 2001 filed by the appellant. The First Appeal No. 115 of 2001 was filed by State of Goa through the Secretary, Forest Department; the Collector South Sub-Division, Margao, Goa; the Director of Survey & Settlement Officer, Panaji, Goa and the Chief Secretary, Panaji, Goa challenging the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge dated 23.04.2001 dismissing the Civil Suit No. 64 of 1995 filed by the plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 9 as well as the counter claim filed by defendants- appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are:
2.1 Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1995 was filed by Shri Narayan V. Gaonkar, Shri Shivram V. Gaonkar and Shri Rama S.F. Dessai in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem praying for following: -
"In the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed to your honour, to direct the survey authorities to delete the name of "Forest Department" from the survey entry No.11/1 of the village Sulcorna from "Name of the Occupant" column of survey Form No. I & XIV and to declare the plaintiffs as the exclusive owners of the property bearing survey No.11/1 known as "CONDA MALL" or "BINDANGAL" or "BINDAN MOLL" or "CARIA MOLL" of Village Sulcorna of Taluka Quepem."
2.2 In the Suit, the Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Goa; the Collector South Sub-Division, Margao, Goa; the Director of Survey & Settlement Officer, Survey of Land Records, Panaji, Goa and the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa were defendant Nos. 1 to 4. A common written statement-cum-counter claim was filed by all the defendants refuting the claim of the plaintiffs. The defendants claimed that entire suit property under Survey No.11/1 of village Sulcorna of Quepem Taluka, admeasuring an area of 23,04,500 sq. mtrs. is in possession and belongs to the Forest Department and as such the name of the Forest Department has been rightly recorded in occupant's column in said Survey No.11/1 and the plaintiffs nor any person have any right over the suit property.
2.3 The plaintiffs claim that they are owners in possession of a landed property known as CONDA MOLL or BINDIGAL or BINDAN MOLL, situated at Sulcorna Village in Quepem Taluka, Goa was disputed. Defendant's pleaded that entire plantation existing there are planted and enjoyed by the Forest Department. It was pleaded that suit property is a forest property of the Forest Department vide Notification published in the Official Gazette "Repartieao de Femente" dated 11.01.1951.
2.4 In the counter claim, it was pleaded that plaintiffs have been wrongly recorded as co-occupants in survey No.11/1 of Village Sulcorna, Taluka Quepem, which is owned, enjoyed and in possession of the defendant No.1 - Forest Department for the last many years and reference to the Notification dated 11.01.1951 was made. In the counter claim, following prayers were made by the defendants in paragraph 17:-
"17. In the circumstances, the Defendants pray:
(a) That by a decree in the nature of direction, the survey authority be directed to delete the names of the plaintiffs from the occupant's column in respect of survey No.11/1, Sulcorna Village of Quepem Taluka.
(b) For any other reliefs in the circumstances of the case may require."
2.5 Written statement to the counter claim was also filed by the plaintiffs claiming that they are in exclusive possession of Survey No.11/1 and the name of the Forest Department has been wrongly recorded as co-occupants.
2.6 The learned Civil Judge framed two issues to the following effect:-
(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are owners in possession of the suit property as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint?
(2) Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs name have been wrongly recorded as co-occupant in the property surveyed under No.11/1 of Village S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
