The judgment emphasized the conditions for quashing a decree passed by a Civil Court, including want of jurisdiction, error apparent on the face of the record, and violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA)

1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the writ-petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the land in question is a reserve forest land and for further declaration that it was not open for the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj, to reopen the above issue in view of the judgment and order dated 12th March 1996 of this High Court in SCA No.1415 of 1995 and consequently, to declare that the said decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.206 of 2003 by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhuj is null and void with further direction upon the Government Authorities to take possession of the land in question.

2. The case made out by the petitioner may be summed up thus :-

2.1 In spite of the fact that the location of the land being Survey No.27 and 51 (paiki) and the land bearing Survey No.173 (paiki) which are forest land, one Shri Kanji Devji, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos.3 to 5, filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Bhuj, to grant the land of 1 Acre 20 Guntha from the land bearing Survey No.173 (paiki) being adjoining land. The Deputy Collector, Bhuj, passed order dated 8th April 1982 in favour of Shri Kanji Devji and on that basis, the Revenue entry was made on 14th April 1982.

2.2 The Collector, Kutch took the aforesaid order of the Deputy Collector, Bhuj, in Revision under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and after hearing the parties, the Collector, Kutch passed order dated 7th August 1989 and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Bhuj, dated 8th April 1982.

2.3 The aforesaid order of the Collector dated 7th August 1989 was challenged before the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat on behalf of Kanji Devji. The Secretary (Appeals) by order dated 11th October 1990 confirmed the order of the Collector, Bhuj dated 7th August 1989.

2.4 Being dissatisfied, a Special Civil Application No.1415 of 1995 was filed before this Court at the instance of Shri Kanji Devji and the respondent No.4, who was holding power of attorney of Shri Kanji Devji, executed sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 5 on 15th September 1994. During the pendency of the Special Civil Application, respondent Nos.3 and 5 made an application for addition of parties and such prayer was allowed by this Court on 11th October 1995. Ultimately, this Court by order dated 12th March 1996 confirmed the order of the Collector, Kutch dated 7th August 1989 holding that the land in question is a forest land.

2.5 After a long period of more than seven years, respondent Nos.3 and 5 filed a Regular Civil Suit being No.206 of 2003 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Bhuj, praying therein for declaration that the land in question is not a forest land and the Forest Department has no right over the said land. The said suit was contested by the State-respondent as well as the Forest Authority and the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge by the judgment and decree dated 15th May 2009 decreed the suit and held that the Forest Department has no right over the land which is in conflict with the judgment of this Court in SCA No.1415 of 1995.

2.6 Although the petitioner has no personal interest over the land in question, the petitioner has approached this Court being a public spirited person for wrong being done in which the Government authorities are not taking action as respondent Nos.3 to 5 are highly influential persons in Kutch district and respondent No.4 is holding the post of Vice President of a political party.

3. This application is opposed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 thereby contending inter alia that this Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable and the judgment and decree passed in the Civil Suit having attained finality, the said decree cannot be upset by this application.

4. So far as the previous proceeding is concerned,