Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 946
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, Vikram Nath, JJ.
The State of Karnataka & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M.A. Mohamad Sanaulla & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 5801 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 17195 of 2021)
Decided On : 20-09-2022
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nikhil Goel, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Adithya Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. Vishal Badri, Adv. Mr. Piyush Dwivedi, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
In a State machinery, it takes reasonable time to nominate and arrange for another officer to come and give evidence in court – Time for producing a witness to prove plaint averments as also other supporting material ought to be extended in interest of justice.
Headnote:
Property Law – Suit for Declaration, Possession and Permanent Injunction – Suit filed by State dismissed by High Court – Forest Range Officer who had given his examination-in-chief was supposed to appear for cross-examination – He did not appear on the date – There could have been many reasons for his non-appearance both genuine and ingenuine – In a State machinery, it takes reasonable time to nominate and arrange for another officer to come and give evidence in court – Trial Court ought to have given adequate opportunity to State – Time for producing a witness to prove plaint averments as also other supporting material ought to have been extended in interest of justice – State has been denied adequate opportunity by Courts below and certain material documents have not been taken into consideration by courts below as such it would in fitness of things and in interest of justice that matter may be remitted back to Trial Court – Impugned judgment of High Court and that of Trial Court set aside and matter remanded to Trial Court for afresh decision. (Paras 16, 17 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Appellant State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal assailing the correctness of judgment and order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal whereby the appeal of the State was dismissed along with a cost of Rs.1 lakh with certain adverse remarks against the State law officer conducting the matter with a direction to conduct enquiry also. The High Court had confirmed the judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 08.03.2012 passed in OS No.1424 of 2006 whereby suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction filed by State- appellant was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Matter is remanded to the Trial Court for afresh decision after affording due opportunity of leading evidence to appellant both documentary and oral and corresponding right of rebuttal to respondent to lead oral and documentary evidence. As the suit is of the year 1997, we expect Trial Court to make an endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year. Parties will extend their cooperation in early disposal of the suit.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
The appellant State of Karnataka has preferred this appeal assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular First Appeal No.1287 of 2012, “The State of Karnataka and another vs. M.A. Mohd. Sanaulla and another” whereby the appeal of the State was dismissed along with a cost of Rs.1 lakh with certain adverse remarks against the State law officer conducting the matter with a direction to conduct enquiry also. The High Court had confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 08.03.2012 passed in OS No.1424 of 2006 whereby suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction filed by the State- appellant was dismissed.
FACTS:
2. The dispute relates to land situated in village Chikkasanne within Bhuvanahalli State Forest area. Notification dated 08.01.1921 issued under Section 4 of the Forest Regulation read with Section 17 of the Mysore Forests Regulations declared that with effect from 01.02.1921 an area of 59 acres 08 guntas equal to 09 square miles in Taluk Devanahalli, District Bangalore (Block Bhuvanahalli) comprising of lot no. 66, 67 and 68 of village Chikkasanne to be a State Forest. Later on, at some stage during resurvey, Survey No. 67 measuring 44 acres 29 guntas was given new Survey No. 69 for the same area.
3. During an auction sale held on 13.09.1936 by the Court for recovery of arrears of land revenue, and confirmed on 19.11.1936 Survey No. 69 measuring 43 acres and 24 guntas was purchased by one T.N.Subbaraiya Mudaliar. Later on, vide sale deed dated 19.08.1977, the respondent No.1 purchased 08 acres 35 guntas of Survey No. 69 from the auction purchaser/his successor-in-interest. The respondent No.1 claimed to have continued his possession but on account of some interferences by the State authorities, he was compelled to approach the Civil Court.
4. The respondent No.1 instituted OS No. 600 of 1981 against the forest department praying for the relief of permanent injunction from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property being 08 acres 35 guntas of dry land in Survey No. 69 with the boundaries described in the schedule.
5. The Court of Munsiff, Devanahalli vide judgment and order dated 13.12.1985 dismissed the suit with cost. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore, registered as R.A. No.10/1986. The said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 24.07.1989 by setting aside the judgment and decree of learned Munsiff and decreeing the suit.
6. The State of Karnataka, preferred Regular Second Appeal No. 673 of 1996 before the High Court. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the State of Karnataka instituted OS No. 34 of 1997 against the respondent No.1 for declaration that the suit schedule land and trees of the cashew nuts and other trees grown in the said land are part and parcel of Bhuvanahalli Forest block; that the respondent No.1 has no manner of right, title and interest over the schedule land. Further, consequential reliefs by way of mandatory injunction directing the respondent to remove the illegal fence put up by him on the schedule land was also prayed for. The schedule land was the same land as described in the OS No. 600 of 1981 instituted by the respondent No.1. Later on, the said suit OS No. 34 of 1997 was renumbered as OS No.1424 of 2006 for the reason that it was transferred to Fast Track Court, Devanhalli.
7. The appellant -State after filing of the above suit moved a memo in the Second Appeal No. 673 of 1996 to withdraw the appeal in view of the fact that it had already instituted OS No. 34 of 1997 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bangalore. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn on 11.03.1997.
8. The respondent No.1 contested the suit and filed written statement. Issues were framed. Parties led evidence. The Trial Court vide judgment and
