A civil suit seeking declaration of public interest over properties must substantiate claims with sufficient documents, otherwise it can be dismissed for non-maintainability under relevant land revenue laws.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.343/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi challenging the correctness of the order dated 21.04.2022 by which it rejected the plaint by entertaining an application filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants.

3. The suit in O.S. No.343/2021 was filed in representative capacity for declaration that the suit properties were reserved for the use of the general public and to restrain the defendant No.1 from interfering with the possession and use of the suit properties by the general public. They also sought for a prayer that the general public should be entitled to all the benefits arising out of the suit properties.

4. The plaintiffs claimed that they are the residents of Jagir Gadadur village in Hanamanal hobli, Kushtagi taluk and that they were aware of the complete details of the lands in Jagir Gadadur. They claimed that they were the permanent residents of Jagir Gadadur. They contended that the suit properties were in the possession of the general public and the revenue records of the suit properties showed that they were Government grazing land, gayarana, Gomala, Forest Department. They claimed that prior to the year 1953, the suit properties were under the administration of the Nijam of Hyderabad and were treated as Jagir and the revenue entries were made in the name of Jagirdar. They claimed that the name of Mr.Dadacharya Jyagiradar/Dadacharya was mentioned in the revenue records till the year 1973. They claimed that after the abolition of Jagirs, the Jagirdar-Mr.Dadacharya Jagirdar expired about 60 years ago without leaving any legal heirs. They contended that since entries were not made in the name of the State Government that it was a Gomal in the revenue records, the revenue officials in collusion with one Mr. Govindacharya S/o. Venkappacharya had managed to get his name entered in the revenue records. They contended that the said Govindacharya has nothing to do with the suit schedule properties and that he was neither the owner nor in possession or cultivation of the said properties. They alleged that the suit properties comprised of a rocky terrain and the residents of the villages surrounding it were grazing their cattle in the suit properties. They contended that suit properties were not suitable for cultivation. Nonetheless, in column No.12 of the Pahani it was shown as “Togari, Sajje, Bele” etc. Plaintiffs contended that these entries made in column No.12 were all false. They also contended that they had no revenue documents justifying the transfer of the revenue records to the name of Govindacharya. They further contended that defendant No.1 was not in any way related to the suit properties and was never in possession of it. She claimed that she was the wife of Govindacharya and had submitted fraudulent documents and in collusion with the revenue officials had managed to obtain the mutation in her name on 15.05.1990. They also contended that defendant No.1 was never the owner of the suit properties and was never in possession. They further contended that in column No.12 of the revenue records, the suit properties were shown as “uncultivated, Gomal and Forest Department”. They contended that the forest department had planted saplings in the suit properties, which had matured and public were utilising the same. They contended that neither the defendant No.1 nor the Mr.Dadacharya Jyagiradar or Gov