Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.K. SUDHINDRARAO, J.
State of Karnataka by Chief Secretary & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Sri Krishnappa S/o. Nanjundachari & Ors. - Respondents
R.S.A. No.1291 of 2009 c/w R.S.A. No. 1290 of 2009
Decided On : 07-03-2019
For the Appellant : Sri V. Sreenidhi, AGA.
For the Respondent:Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., Advocate.
Headnote:
Forest Conservation Act, 1981 - Section 2 - Relief of permanent injunction - Suit schedule property - Plaintiffs have filed suit before court Additional Civil Judge defendants State of Karnataka by Chief Secretary Bangalore District Forest Officer District Kola seeking permanent injunction to restrain defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property – Held, None documents produced by plaintiff in each cases are tenable - First appellate Judge has failed to understand presumptive value of revenue documents and legal position involved in these cases and allowed appeals through judgment that go in evasive manner regarding crucial aspect - This tendency requires to be curbed and also to update knowledge regarding documents - Court concur totally with findings of learned Civil Judge dismissal of suits in both cases - Insofar as judgments passed by learned first appellate Judges concerned it is only irregular sans proper application of mind and appreciation of evidence - In circumstances in my view plaintiffs have made claim in respect properties that did not belong to them and also grant made to that extent through proper documents and they have made calculated attempt to grab government land and also have relied upon documents that apparently appeared forged - When documents itself are forged one claiming possession or title or any kind of interests over same by plaintiffs not only do not arise and it deserves to be curbed - In this connection in view of approach of plaintiffs in claiming and prosecuting suits against Government they are liable to pay cost - By each of them to Karnataka State Legal Aid Committee - At same time copy of this judgment be sent to court Additional Civil Judge he is working and copy of this judgment be sent to District to initiate enquiry against officials who have issued documents regarding government land – Hence substantial questions of law are answered accordingly - Appeals allowed
JUDGMENT :
These two appeals by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2/appellants herein are directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.4.2009 passed in R.A. Nos. 331/2008 and 330/2008 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), & CJM Kolar, wherein the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2008 passed in O.S.No.202/2005 and O.S.No.204/2005 by the learned I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Kolar, came to be set aside and the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
2. The tabular representation of the proceedings are as under :
| Sl. No. | RSA No. | RA No. Preferred by whom date of Disposal and Result | OS No. Preferred by whom date of Disposal and Result |
| 1. | 1291/2009 | 331/2008 25.4.2009 Krishnappa Appeal allowed and suit decreed | 202/2005 10.11.2008 Krishnappa, suit dismissed |
| 2. | 1290/2009 | 330/2008 25.4.2009 Buddanna Appeal allowed and suit decreed | 204/2005 10.11.2008 Buddanna suit dismissed |
3. This Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law in both the appeals :
RSA No.1291/2009
1. Whether the State Government is competent to grant land in favour of the respondent in Sy.No.8 of Karapa Siddhanahalli village which was the land granted in favour of the Forest Department on 06.07.1936?
2. Whether the grant made in favour of respondent is in contravention of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1981?
RSA No.1290/2009
Whether the Lower Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and in decreeing the suit without appreciating Ex.D2?
4. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties hereinafter are referred in accordance with their respective status as stood in the Trial Court.
5. As both the appeals are related to same subject matter and the matters pertain to granting of lands, they were ordered to be clubbed together and now this Court dispose of the appeals through a common judgment.
6. Plaintiffs-Krishnappa and Buddanna have filed suit in O.S.No.202/2005 and 204/2005 before the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), & JMFC Kolar, against the defendants viz., (i) State of Karnataka by Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore and (ii) The District Forest Officer, Kolar District, Kolar, seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
7. Insofar as RSA 1291/2009 (RA No.331/2008 and O.S.No.202/2005) is concerned, before the trial Court, plaintiff-Krishnappa sought the relief of permanent injunction claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land to the extent of 5 acres in Survey No.8, situate at Kapara Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk, as it was granted in his favour by the Government.
8. Insofar as RSA 1290/2009 (RA No.330/2008 and O.S.No.204/2005) is concerned, before the trial Court, plaintiff-Buddanna sought the relief of permanent injunction on the similar lines claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land to the extent of 5 acres in Survey No.8, situate at Kapara Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk, as it was granted in his favour by the Government.
9. The claim of plaintiffs in both the suits were resisted by the Forest officials headed by 2nd defendant. The account according to the defendants in respect of the land in survey No.8 of Kapara Siddanahalli village, Vokkaleri Hobli, Kolar Taluk is as under :
It is stated that, the total land available in survey No.8 of the said village is 138 acres 12 guntas and out of which, 105 acres was granted to the 2nd defendant on 6.7.1936 by the then Maharaja of Mysore and since then the Forest Department and the District Range of Kolar is in possession and enjoyment of the above said land which covers the schedule property and they have grown trees and other valuable plants. It is further stated that the plaintiffs in both the cas
