(Board of Revenue for Rajasthan)
Forest Expansion Officer Vs. P.S. Samod Gramin (Saharan, M.)
TARA CHAND SAHARAN, MEMBER
B.L. NAVAL, MEMBER
Forest Expansion Officer, Social Forestry, Chaumu
Versus
Police Station Samod Gramin
Appeal Decree/2163/2003/Jaipur, decided on 21.12.2011
Appeal dismissed.
jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 188 & LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKkFkZ okn & fookn jkT; ljdkj ds nks foHkkxksa ds e/; gS & bls lquokbZ dh jktLo e.My dh vf/kdkfjrk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & jkT; ljdkj ds nks foHkkxksa ds e/; okn iks"k.kh; ugha rFkk mlds fo:) vihy Hkh iks"k.kh; ugha & lafo/kku ;k fl-iz-la- esa dksbZ O;oLFkk ugha &,slh izFkk tufgr ds fy, ?kkrd gSA
vihy [kkfjt dhA ¼in la[;k 7 ls 9½
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 131, 226 & 300- Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Secs. 79 & 80 - Order 27 Rule 1 & Order 1 Rule 9 & 10 - Dispute between two departments of State with regard to title of land - Chief Conservator of Forest filed writ petition against order of Commissioner of Survey- "State not arrayed as party - Petition dismissed by High Court- Appeal - Whether maintainable- Held, No- Suit by or Government be filed in the name of Union or State Government as the case may be- Suit/"Writ between two departments of State not maintainable, so also the appeal there against (Para 16).
(B) Constitution of India, 1950-Arts. 131, 226 and 300-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Secs. 79 & 80, Order 27 Rule 1 & Order 1 Rule 9 & 10 - Suit/Writ between two departments of State Government- Not envisaged in Constitution or CPC-Such practice detrimental to public interest-Direction to constitute committee to settle inter departmental disputes given. (Para 14).
5- izdj.k dh izd`fr dks Hkyh Hkkafr Li"V djus ds fy, ge iSjk 16 ,oa iSjk 14 dk iw.kZr;k mYys[k djuk Hkh mfpr le>rs gSa&
Para 16:
Now, reverting to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the view that after the said statutory order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record, the matter should have rested there. We have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was not only inappropriate but also illegal for the Chief Conservator of Forest, though he might have done so in all good faith, to have questioned the order of the Commissioner of Survey. Settlement and Land Record before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition (C) No. 3414 of 1982. The Chief Conservator of Forests as the petitioner can neither be treated as the State of Andhra Pradesh nor can it be a case of misdescription of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The fact is that the State of Andhra Pradesh was not the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petitio
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.