2021 Supreme(UK) 90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Rajesh Sah & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 170 of 2018
Decided On : 01-04-2021

Headnote:

WRIT PETITION - Limitation Act, 1963 - Applicability of Section 29(2) - District Judge hearing appeal under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Whether a "Court" - Whether Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners claimed to be the owners of 21.061 hectares of land situated at village Chakmoti Bagh, Tehsil, Nainital. In the proceedings held under the Forest Act, before the Forest Settlement Officer, there was a specific case of the petitioners that they have been recorded in the revenue records, as owner of the land and in support thereto, the petitioners had placed on record the Khatauni of the land pertaining to 1420 to 1425 fasli and under the strength of which the petitioners contends that since they being the recorded owners of the property in question, they would be entitled for to be paid with the adequate compensation, as was to be determined by the Forest Settlement Officer, under the provisions of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 as provided under Section 11 of the Act (hereinafter to be called as Act of 1927). A notification being Notification No.6119/14-2-93-4(14) 92 dated 25.06.1993; was issued by the respondent State by invoking the provisions contained under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act of 1927, intending for the declaration of land as a reserved forest, which included the land of the petitioners, as to be a part of acquired reserve forest. As a consequence of intention of the State to declare the land as to be a reserve forest and which was inclusive of the land, which was recorded with the petitioners, the Forest Settlement Officer by invoking the provisions contained under Section 6 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 had issued a proclamation, and had invited the objections from the land owners by issuing a notification to the said effect on 10.07.1995. As a consequence of the notification, which was issued under Section 6 of the Act, soliciting an objection from the petitioners, as against the proposal of the State under Section 4, for declaration of reserve forest, in pursuance to the notification, which was issued under Section 4 of the Act, on 25.06.1993, admittedly, the records shows that the petitioners did file their objection, before the Forest Settlement Officer and as a consequence of it, it was instituted which was registered as Case No.37 of 1995-1996, with regard to the aforesaid acquisition proceedings for declaration of reserve forest, of the land of the petitioners, as referred above and for proceeding further for commutation as per Section 16 of the Forest Act, 1927. The proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer, under Section 16, for the purposes of determination of compensation, which the petitioners were entitled to receive, from the respondents, as a consequence of acquisition of their property, for declaration of a reserve forest, the proceedings were held on merit and consequently, by an order of 08.06.2016, as was rendered in Case No.37 of 1995-1996, the Forest Settlement Officer; had made a reference for deciding the controversy in the light of the provisions contained under Section 11(2)(ii) of the Forest Act, which was the foundation and the basis of the agreement between the petitioners, as well as the respondents and it was referred to be decided as per Section 20 of the Forest Act which is extracted here under:-

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the District Judge hearing an appeal under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is a "Court" and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable. The Court observed that the determination of compensation for land acquired for a reserve forest under the Forest Act, 1927 is an adjudication of an individual's right and hence, the District Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act is a "Court" within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court further observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not specifically excluded by the Forest Act, 1927 and hence, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be available to the respondents for the purposes, where under the special Statue, the provisions of Limitation Act, has not been specifically made applicable by its inclusion under the Act.

Issues: Whether the District Judge hearing an appeal under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is a "Court" and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the District Judge hearing an appeal under Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is a "Court" and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable. The Court observed that the determination of compensation for land acquired for a reserve forest under the Forest Act, 1927 is an adjudication of an individual's right and hence, the District Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act is a "Court" within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court further observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not specifically excluded by the Forest Act, 1927 and hence, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be available to the respondents for the purposes, where under the special Statue, the provisions of Limitation Act, has not been specifically made applicable by its inclusion under the Act.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.