Enforceable rights under the Forest Rights Act require strict adherence to statutory procedures; mere possession without valid documentation cannot substantiate legal claims over forest land.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. This second appeal u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”) questions the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Arvalli @ Modasa in Regular Civil Appeal No.37 of 2022, by which the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.4.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Jujdge, Modasa in Regular Civil Suit No.75 of 2010, whereby the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. Following questions of law have been posed as substantial questions of law:-

“(a) Whether the Courts below have committed a substantial error of law in holding that no enforceable right can arise under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, unless final certification under Rule 8(7) is issued, ignoring the protective and beneficial nature of the legislation?

(b)Whether the courts below have erred in law in treating long, continuous, and settled possession as irrelevant, contrary to the settled principles governing injunction and possessory rights, even against the State?

(c) Whether the First Appellate Court failed to discharge its statutory duty under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, by not independently re-appreciating the entire evidence and by merely affirming the findings of the Trial Court?

(d) Whether the findings of the courts below are perverse in law, inasmuch as they are based on selective reading of admissions while ignoring material documentary evidence produced by the appellant?

(e) Whether reliance placed solely on revenue entries (7/12 extract) without examining actual possession and cultivation, amounts to an error of law?

(f) Whether the dismissal of the suit without considering the doctrine of settled possession and due process of law, violates Articles 300-A and 21 of the Constitution of India?”

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction to declare that the l had been provided/allotted land bearing survey No.157 being forest land admeasuring 10 acre situated at village Dhandhiya, Tal: Meghraj (in short “suit land”) after following due process to cultivate the land and the defendants have no whatsoever right to disturb the possession of the l or to carry out any plantation within the suit land provided / allotted to the plaintiff. A declaration has been sought with perpetual injunction that the defendants be restrained from restraining the plaintiff from enjoying the possession of the suit land and further restrained from disturbing the plaintiff from taking crop from the suit land.

4.1 The aforesaid relief was claimed by the plaintiff in the backdrop of pleadings that the forest department and defendant Nos.4 and 5 were part of the Committee constituted under the Government schemes for granting forest land to persons who have been cultivating such land for several years.

4.2 Since the father of the plaintiff have been cultivating suit land since many years, said suit land was allotted to the father of the plaintiff after following due process of law and since then, the suit land is continued in possession of the plaintiff.

4.3 According to the plaintiff, under the Government policies and resolutions applicable to Scheduled Tribes and forest dwellers, persons who have been in long and continuous cultivation of forest land are entitled to be granted such land permanently. Defendant No. 3 is the authority empowered by the Government to implement these provisions. Under the scheme, a Committee was formed and 25 cases from Dhandh