IMPORTANT POINT
A title suit cannot be based solely on revenue records when statutory notifications establish land as part of a State Reserve Forest.

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)

This appeal by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') & the State Government, seeks to call in question the judgment & decree dated 29.08.2011 entered by the learned II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mysuru, whereby the respondent-plaintiffs' declaration suit in O.S.No.476/2010 has been decreed. The operative portion of the said judgment & decree reads as under:

“The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed.

It is declared that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit schedule properties.

It is further ordered that the defendants are restrained not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property in item No.1, 2 & 4.

It is further ordered that the revenue authorities are hereby directed to enter the name of the plaintiffs as owner of the suit schedule properties.

It is further ordered that the 4th defendant is hereby directed to hand over the possession of item No.3 of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs.”

2. FACTS IN BRIEF:

(a) The private respondents herein had filed the subject suit for declaration of title, for possession and for injunction in respect of suit lands fully described in the schedule thereto. The appellant-KSRTC and State & its officials happened to be the defendants. Suit is founded principally on the ground that the subject lands are the ancestral properties; originally they belonged to one Sri.Mayaga S/o Kurubara Malla. 1st plaintiff Sri.Mallaiah claimed to be his son; plaintiff Nos.2, 3 & 4 are the sons of 1st plaintiff. Other plaintiffs also claim under Sri.Mayaga only.

(b) Plaintiffs averred that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in a set of circumstances: all through, revenue records reflected the name of Sri.Mayaga as the owner/kabjedaar of lands in question; the jurisdictional revenue authorities unlawfully changed these entries in favour of the State Forest Department; plaintiffs' pursuit of remedies under the provisions of section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ultimately having proved futile, they had filed W.P.No.29959/2009 and a learned Single Judge of this court vide order dated 9.6.2010 disposed off the petition relegating the plaintiffs to Civil Court inter alia on the ground that disputed facts were involved. Therefore, said suit was filed.

(c) The State & its officials filed their Written Statement resisting the suit; so did the Appellant-KSRTC as well. The gist of their case was that: way back in 1929, the then Mysore Government had issued the Notification for the formation of State Reserve Forest and the suit lands are comprised therein; the finality of this Notification has not been disturbed, no proceedings having been taken up for setting the same at naught; even otherwise, the said lands along with other have vested in the State by virtue of acquisition process that commenced with the Notifications of 1935/1940 issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; the change of entries in favour of the State Forest Department was rightly effected by the jurisdictional Revenue Officials; the plaintiffs are not related to the said Mr.Mayaga in any way and that they had fabricated records to vouch their title.

(d) The KSRTC in its Written Statement had contended that in part of the suit lands, the KSRTC Bus Stand has been established; this land was diverted to the public purpose with the previous sanction of the Central Government granted under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It is relevant to mention here itself a significant development in the matter: during the pendency of suit, the land occupied by the KSRTC was officially got surveyed and the survey report suggested that the KSRTC Bus Stand is structured in lands other than suit lands, although a small portion thereof is partly protruded in a part of one of the suit lands. The authenticity of this report is not in dispute by any of the parties.

(e) The Trial Court on the basis of pleadin