1. Dispute over land declared as reserved forest under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 — Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 347
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.
The State of Telangana and Others – Appellants
Versus
Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5001 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (c) No. 6937 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2024
Important Points
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in reviewing a decree regarding forest land, improperly relying on inadmissible evidence and failing to respect the finality of proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act.
Subject
Environmental Law - Forest Conservation
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH FOREST ACT : S.13, S.15, S.16, S.2, S.4, S.4(1), S.7, S.8, S.9
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.47 R.1, S.114, S.376, S.378
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.137, Art.14
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.10, S.11, S.4(1), S.5(a), S.6, S.7, S.8, S.9
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.47 R.1, S.114, S.376, S.378
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.137, Art.14
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.10, S.11, S.4(1), S.5(a), S.6, S.7, S.8, S.9
Headnote
(A) Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 - Sections 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16 - Review of judgment - The High Court's review of a decree regarding forest land was challenged, asserting jurisdictional overreach and reliance on inadmissible evidence - The court emphasized the finality of proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession, and the review was improperly exercised. (Paras 3, 4, 54, 56, 59)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court reiterated that the Forest Settlement Officer's decisions are conclusive unless properly challenged, and the High Court cannot act as an appellate court in review proceedings. (Paras 54, 56)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought to claim ownership of land declared as reserved forest under the A.P. Forest Act, but failed to prove title or possession, leading to a dismissal of his suit by the trial court and the High Court. (Paras 40-46)
Findings of Court:
The High Court's review was found to lack jurisdiction and was based on inadmissible evidence, leading to the restoration of the original decree. (Paras 54-59)
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the High Court in review and the validity of the evidence considered in the review. (Paras 54, 56)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence and reversing findings without proper grounds, emphasizing the finality of the A.P. Forest Act proceedings. (Paras 54-59)
Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment set aside, restoring the original decree.
(B) Jurisdiction - The court reiterated that the Forest Settlement Officer's decisions are conclusive unless properly challenged, and the High Court cannot act as an appellate court in review proceedings. (Paras 54, 56)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought to claim ownership of land declared as reserved forest under the A.P. Forest Act, but failed to prove title or possession, leading to a dismissal of his suit by the trial court and the High Court. (Paras 40-46)
Findings of Court:
The High Court's review was found to lack jurisdiction and was based on inadmissible evidence, leading to the restoration of the original decree. (Paras 54-59)
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the High Court in review and the validity of the evidence considered in the review. (Paras 54, 56)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence and reversing findings without proper grounds, emphasizing the finality of the A.P. Forest Act proceedings. (Paras 54-59)
Result: Appeal allowed; the impugned judgment set aside, restoring the original decree.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- environmental law
- constitutional law
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Tayade Pranali Gowardhan, Adv. Ms. Jayashree Pk, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chawa, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dharmesh DK Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Tayade Pranali Gowardhan, Adv. Ms. Jayashree Pk, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chawa, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dharmesh DK Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argue the High Court exceeded review jurisdiction by allowing a re-hearing; Respondents contend an error apparent on the record justified the review. (Para 52 , 53 )
3. The High Court improperly exercised review jurisdiction by treating it as an appeal and relying on inadmissible evidence from an authority lacking jurisdiction. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )
4. Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is restrictive and cannot be used for re-hearing or correcting erroneous decisions on merits. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned review judgment set aside — First appeal judgment restored — Costs imposed on both parties. (Para 59 )
6. What is the scope and limitation of the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC?
Review is a restrictive power exercised only upon discovery of new and important matter not available despite due diligence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous sufficient reasons. It cannot be used as a disguised appeal for re-hearing or to correct a decision merely because it is erroneous on merits. (Para 14 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
7. What is the legal effect of a notification declaring land as reserved forest under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967?
Once the process under Section 15 is completed and a notification is published, the land is deemed a reserved forest. Under Section 16, any rights not claimed during the prescribed period stand extinguished upon the publication of the Section 15 notification. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. What is the difference between anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches in environmental jurisprudence?
Anthropocentrism focuses on human interest, viewing non-humans as having only instrumental value. Ecocentrism is nature-centered, recognizing that humans are part of nature and that non-human entities have intrinsic value and rights, requiring a shift toward treating humans as trustees of the Earth. (Para 31 )
9. Who bears the burden of proof in litigation involving potential environmental degradation?
The burden of proof is reversed in environmental cases; the onus lies on the actor, developer, industrialist, or State to prove that their action is environmentally benign and does not cause degradation, rather than the opponent proving harm. (Para 38 , 39 )
10. How does the Public Trust Doctrine influence the State's management of natural resources?
The State acts as a trustee of natural resources for the benefit of the general public. This imposes a demanding obligation to protect these resources, subjecting any government action attempting to restrict free use to a high degree of judicial scrutiny. (Para 39 )
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The statement made by the Tribal Chief Seattle, way back in the year 1854, in his letter to the offer of George Washington, the former First President of the United States of America, to buy their land, is a pearl of wisdom not understood by the ignorant, educated modern mind:
“Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.
Xxx xxx xxx
This we know: the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”
3. A well merited judgment, passed in A.S. No. 145 of 1994 by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, decided on a conscious consideration of the issues raised before it, confirming the one rendered by the Trial Court, was reviewed like an Appellate Court, based upon the materials that emanated after its filing, at the instance of a party defendant in whose favour a decree was granted and that too by acting without the requisite jurisdiction, is under challenge in this appeal.
4. We are dealing with a case where an instrumentality of the State, despite a categorical finding of the suit property being a forest land, took different stands, but finally rectified by way of an affidavit before this Court. This act of taking different stands resulted in facilitating the impugned order being passed in favour of the respondents, setting aside the concurrent judgments rendered by two courts below, on appreciation of fact and law.
5. Heard Learned Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati for Appellants and Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Mr. L Narsimha Reddy for Respondents, perused the entire record, including the affidavits filed.
THE ANDHRA PRADESH FOREST ACT, 1967
6. The Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “the A.P. Forest Act”) has been enacted with a laudable objective of conserving, protecting and extending the forest cover, with a sound mechanism to deal with all the disputes arising thereunder while declaring land as reserved forest:
“As this Act is only a Consolidating Act, it is necessary that the objects and reasons of the Madras Act are incorporated so that the objects and reasons for this Act can as well be known. The Objects and Reasons of the Madras Act were published in Fort St. George Gazette Extraordinary, dated 06th July 1882 at page 17 as follows:
Statement of Objects and Reasons: This Act is designed to supply the want which had long been felt of legislative enactment to enable Government to carry out effectually the conservancy of forests of the Presidency, and to systematic and regulate the action of the Forest Department.
The first necessity is to provide for the constitution of the more important forests as State Reserves, and either to clear them under arrangement for due compensation of private rights which mitigate against forest conservancy, or to ascertain and define such rights so that future extension of them and fresh encroachments shall be impossible. To this end, the Act enables Government to empower officers to be called Forest Settlement officers to enquire into and to commit on record all private rights in areas to be elected for constitution as reserved forests. From the decisions of the officers appeal will lie, in the case of claims involving proprietary rights, to the District Courts, in the case of rights of way, and of rights to pasture to forest produce, or to the use of water to the Collector or other Revenue Officer of not less than such standing. When the enquiry is completed and all claims disposed of and settled, the forest will be declared by the Government to be reserved, and thereafter no fresh
