Strict compliance with statutory provisions required before filing suit under Section 114-A of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. Kamal, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07/01/2020 passed in O.S. No. 76/2015 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bidar, on I.A. No. V filed by the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of non-compliance of statutory requirement as provided under Section 114 (A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Accepting the said application, the Trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the suit.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs claiming to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit land bearing Sy. No. 120/1 measuring 3 acres 14 guntas and Sy. No. 120/3 measuring 02 acres 33 guntas, both situated adjacent to each other having common boundaries on the East by: road, West by: land of Sy. No. 121, North by: PWD road to Bhalki and on the South by: land of Laxmibai, situated in the Kolar-K village, Bidar Taluk and District had filed the suit in O.S. No. 76/2015 for permanent injunction against the defendants namely, (1) The State of Karnataka represented by Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, (2) The District Forest Officer, Bidar and (3) The Range Forest Officer, Sub-division, Bidar Tq and Dist Bidar.

3. The defendants filed the written statement, issues were framed. When the matter was posted for evidence of defendants, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 came up with an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC on the premise that appellants/plaintiffs herein have not complied with the mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 114(A) of the Act by issuing a month's notice of prior to filing of the suit. Hence, sought for rejection of the plaint.

4. In response to the said application, the plaintiffs filed statement of objection contending that they sought for dispensation of issuing notice under Section 80(2) of CPC and that the said dispensation was sufficient enough to maintain the suit. As there was urgency in filing and obtaining interim order, the Court had dispensed with issuance of notice under Section 80(2) of CPC and also entertained the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, granted interim order restraining the defendants from obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the defendants. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have not alleged commission of any wrong act under colour of the duty by the defendants, which attracts the offence as contemplated under Section 114(A) of the Act. As such, the provision of Section 114(A) of the Act was not applicable to the instant suit. As the plaintiffs had only filed suit for declaration and injunction claiming themselves to be the absolute owners of the suit land there was no impediment in maintaining the same. Hence, sought for rejection of the application.

5. The Trial Court, taking note of the plaint averments, held that the plaintiffs had not complied statutory requirement as provided under Section 114(A) of the Act and accordingly allowed the application and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs are before this Court in the present appeal.

6. Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal submitted that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, the Court is required to look into the averments made in the plaint alone and not the defense set up by the defendants. He further submits that the plaintiffs have not pleaded anything in the plaint with regard to any violation of the provision of the Act committed by the defendants to attract the provision of the said Act for rejection of the plaint. He further submits that the dispute is purely of civil in nature, based on the title and provisions the Act was therefore, not applicable. He further submits that the defendants having f