SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Bom) 1639

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
F. M. REIS, J.
Shri Mahadev Sitaram Sinai Kakodkar - Appellants
Versus
The Conservator of Forests, Government of Goa - Respondents
SECOND APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2006
Decided on : 28-8-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. P. Faldessai, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondents.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of appointing a Commissioner to identify the boundaries of the property in dispute, as well as the relevance of the notifications and the interpretation of Article 953 of the Portuguese Civil Code.

Headnote:

ownership - property dispute - Land Revenue Code - Section 14, Article 953 of the Portuguese Civil Code - Notification of the year 2002, 1999 - appointment of Commissioner

Fact of the Case:

The appellants claimed ownership of a property known as 'Ponsoibandulam' or 'Zazabandavangon' situated at Colomb, which was wrongly included in survey nos. 98 and 97. They filed proceedings under Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code for correction of the Survey Records, which were initially allowed by the Inspector of Survey. The appellate authorities and the tribunal non-suited the appellants, leading them to file a suit challenging the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants had established their ownership of the suit property, but failed to establish the identity of the property vis-a-vis the title documents and the survey records. The court held that it was necessary to appoint a Commissioner to identify the boundaries as shown in the title document vis-a-vis the survey records.

Issues: The main issue was the establishment of the identity of the property claimed by the appellants in relation to the survey records and title documents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need to appoint a Commissioner to identify the boundaries as shown in the title document vis-a-vis the survey records, as well as the interpretation of Article 953 of the Portuguese Civil Code and the relevance of the notifications of the years 2002 and 1999.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the judgments of the lower courts, restored the suit to the file of the district court, and directed the district judge to decide the suit afresh after appointing a Commissioner to identify the suit property.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents.


2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 20.11.2006 on the following substantial question of law :

(i) Whether the learned Courts below after finding that the appellants had proved that the appellants were the owners in possession of the suit property which according to the appellants was wrongly included in survey nos. 98 and 97 and that the respondents had not proved that the entire land bearing Survey nos. 97/1 and 98/1 was reserved forest known as "Cudeladongor" belonging to the Forest Department were right in dismissing the appellants' suit ?

3. Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has pointed out that the Appellants are the owners in possession of a property known as "Ponsoibandulam" or "Zazabandavangon" situated at Colomb which is described in the Land Registration Office under no. 15260 and inscribed with Taluka Revenue Office under no.850 and 851 which was purchased pursuant to a Sale Deed dated 07.02.1972 from the original owners Shri Sagun Naik Khurado and his wife. Learned Counsel further pointed out that it is the case of the Appellants that the said property purchased by the Appellants is situated in a portion of the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98 of the said Village. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellants had identified the said portion of the property purchased by them in the plan produced on record at exhibit Pw. 17. Learned Counsel further pointed out that both the Courts below whilst examining the ownership and title claimed by the Appellants have come to the conclusion that the Appellants are the owners of the suit property. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Judgments passed by the Courts below to point out that the Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellants have not identified the said property viz a viz the claim of the Appellants that such property is located in the portion of the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98. Learned Counsel further submits that as the property was wrongly surveyed in the name of the Government, the Appellants filed proceedings under Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code for correction of the Survey Records which were initially allowed by the Inspector of Survey. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellate Authorities under the Land Revenue Code as well as the Tribunal have non-suited the Appellants with regard to such claim of the Appellants which forced the Appellants to file the suit challenging the Orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. Learned Counsel further pointed out that though the Appellants have examined a Surveyor, on untenable grounds essentially that the boundaries of the property have not been identified by the Surveyor, the suit was dismissed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellants have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to produce additional documents which, according to him, clearly establishes that the claim of the Respondents that the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98 forms part of the property known as "Cudeladongor" is not correct. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the Notification of the year 2002 in respect of the claim of the Respondents with regard to the forest known as "Cudeladongor", to point out that the said Notification itself suggests that such forest does not include the said property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98. Learned Counsel further pointed out that both the Courts below have also come to the conclusion that the Respondents have failed to establish that the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98 forms part of the forest "Cudeladongor". Learned Counsel as such submits that in such circumstances it is well settled that when there is a dispute with regard to the identity or demarcati














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top