Back
2011 (4) KCCR 2837
High Court of Karnataka
K. GOVINDARAJULU
Sri. Puttappa @ N. Puttaiah & Others
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Rep, by its Chief Secretary & Others
R.S.A. No. 2641 of 2007
Decided on: 23-10-2010
KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 - Section 6(3): [K.Govindarajulu,J] Bar on the Civil Court to entertain a suit to establish any right in respect of forest land - Held, Sections 3,4,5,6 and 17 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 deal with reserve forest. Under Section 3, the State Government can declare its property as a reserved forest. Under Section 4, the State Government has to issue Notification in regard to the identification of the Said forest land. Under Section 5, the Forest Settlement Officer to notify the particulars of the forest land. Section 6 bars any right being created when once the Notification under Section 4 is issued by the Government. Under Section 6(3), there is a bar on the Civil Court to entertain a suit to establish any right in or over any land in respect of which notification under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is issued. Section 7 authorize the enquiry by the Forest Settlement Officer after the declaration of a land as a forest land under Section 4 of the Act. Section 17 deals with Notification declaring the forest as a reserved forest. Who has authority to deal with the forest land, gomal land is not at all considered. These aspects of the case are not considered by both the Courts. - Matter needs to be remanded to Appellate Court to decide afresh.
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 - Section 132(1) & (3): [K.Govindarajulu,J] Claim in respect of landed property - Certified copies of records to be annexed to Plaint or Application -- Notification issued by the then Maharaja of Mysore declaring the suit schedule property as forest land - RTC’s disclose that the property is a Gomal Land - Maintainability of the suit as framed - Held, To make a claim in respect of any landed property, The RTCs or Revenue Documents to support the claim of the plaintiffs have to be produced. In the facts of the cased, Ex.P.2 to P.16 are produced along with plaint, they are RTCs. These RTCs disclose that the property is a Gomal Land. Land Revenue Act prohibits dealing with Gomal Land. So, even on the documents produced by the plaintiffs, there is non-compliance of the mandatory rules found in The Karnataka Land Revenued Act. So, there is a duty cast upon the Trial Court and also on the Appellate Court to find out whether the suit as the one framed is maintainable that too in view of the Notification of the years 1936-37 issued by Maharaja of Mysore being not questioned. It is not even the case of the plaintiffs that the said Maharaja who has issued the Notification had no authority or power to issued the Notification. - Further held, As the suit schedule property is Gomal Land, they have to follow the procedure prescribed under the Land Revenue Act. Under the Land Revenue Act, except for the Deputy Commissioner, there is no other authority who can reduce or increase the extent of Gomal Land.
GOVINDARAJULU, J
1. Plaintiff Nos. 3, 6, 17, 24, 27, 33, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 56 in the suit OS No.221/97 are the appellants in this second appeal.
2. Parties will be referred according to their status found in the suit for convenience.
3. Suit is filed by 61 plaintiffs seeking for declaration of title to the plaint schedule property for permanent injunction. In the schedule to the plaint, property is described as land in Sy.Nos.95, 135, 136 measuring 138 acres of Narasapur Hobli situated at Achenahalli Village.
4. Case of the plaintiffs is that they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since 1936, though 1st defendant through the then Maharaja issued a forest settlement Notification in GO.No.105-FT-304-35-8 dated 6.7.1936. Under the said Notification, while declaring these suit schedule Sy.Nos.as forest land, had directed the defendants to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property. It is further pleaded the said Notification could not be implemented as plaintiffs were in possession and enjoying the properties. So, plaintiffs were allowed to cultivate the properties. Plaintiffs in pursuance of the cultivation of the properties have put up borewells, erected pumps, since 20-25 years they are raising vegetables, Mulberry etc. they are in possession of the property. Strangely to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, in the year 1994 3rd defendant attempted to interfere with the possession. Defendants are very well aware that the plaintiffs are in possession of the properties from the year 1936. Defendants have taken assistance of police two days prior to filing of the suit. So, there is urgency. So, seek for dispensing the notice under Section 80.
5. This case of the plaintiffs is resisted by the defendants contending that the total land that is reserved for the forest is 186 acres 29 guntas out of 142 acres. So, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the property. Property described covers properties situated at Kolar Taluk and Malur Taluk and this property is described as “Lakshminagara Plantation”. Since the date of reservation of the property, the defendants are in possession of the property and it is a forest department property. In the said property Eucalyptus and Kadu Bush is also found and survey polls are erected. So, place reliance on the Notification issued by the then Maharaja of Mysore and the Gazette Notification supporting their claim including the RTCs.
6. Learned Trial Judge has framed issues. Parties were permitted to lead evidence. PWs 1 to 7 are examined. Ex.P.1 to P.17 are marked. In response DW.1 is examined. Ex.D.1 to D.8 are marked.
7. Learned Trial Judge has granted permanent injunction as prayed for but rejected the declaration of title as prayed for by the plaintiffs while answering the following issues with the following reasonings:
ISSUES
1. Do the plaintiffs prove that, they are in adverse possession of the suit property to the knowledge of the entire world against the interest of the true owner including the defendant No.1 to 5 since from 1936 more than the statutory period and as such have perfected their title over the suit properties?
2. Do the plaintiffs further prove that, since three days prior to the filing of the instant suit and also on the subsequent dates, the defendants were illegally tried to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit properties by way of denying their title?
3. Do the defendants prove that the instant suit is had for non issual of the notice as required under Section 80 CPC?
4. Do the defendants prove that the suit survey numbers are reserved for the purpose of forming a Forest and the suit properties are the properties belonging to the Forest Department?
5. Do the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief of declaration?
6. Do the plaintiffs further prove that they are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
7. What decree or order?
ANSWERS
Issue
SupremeToday
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
