“Supreme Court Engages in Addressing Complexities of Forest Land Ownership, Review Jurisdiction, and Title Disputes”

Case title: The State of Telangana v. Mohd Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs 

Case no.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6937 of 2021]

Dated on: 18^th April 2024

Quorum: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Between 1950-1959, a revision of survey and settlement of village Kompally occurred, concluded on 17.11.1960. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., seeking rectification of a survey error, claiming ownership of the suit land measuring 106.34 Acres in Village Kompally, District Warangal, Survey Number 171/3 to 171/7. However, this application was rejected by the Revenue Authority only on 10.01.1975, after a notification declaring the land as reserved forest was issued on 11.11.1971. Despite the rejection, the Joint Collector allowed the application on 07.07.1981, but subsequent attempts for denotification were dismissed.

A suit was filed by the Plaintiff in 1985 seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction. The trial court granted title but denied the injunction. On appeal, the High Court reversed the trial court’s decision regarding the declaration but affirmed the decision on injunction, holding the suit property as forest land.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 defines a forest which is inclusive of all types of forests. The extensive inclusion would take in its sweep even the private forests. Revenue records do not confer title. The High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in review by entertaining a re-hearing and virtually acted as an appellate court. The Respondents did not satisfy the court on the title, which finding has not been touched.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently contended that the proceedings before the Forest Settlement Officer have become final. Even the trial court has held that the plaintiff had title. Once title is proved, possession has to follow. As there is an error apparent on the face of record, the power of review has been exercised correctly. The finding that Section 5 of the A.P. Forest Act, has got no application is correct, as there is no attempt to interdict the proceedings. As there is no apparent perversity, this Court need not interfere with the impugned order.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F.: This section pertains to rectification of survey errors and was invoked by the plaintiff to claim ownership of the land.
2. Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act: This section deals with the declaration of land as reserved forest, which was done by the State Government.
3. Section 16 of the A.P. Forest Act: This section provides for the finality and conclusiveness of proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act, once declared, thereby affecting the maintainability of certain legal actions.
4. Section 5 of the A.P. Forest Act: This section imposes a bar on certain suits during the pendency of proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act.
5. Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC 1908: This rule allows the appellate court to partly reverse the decree of the trial court.
6. Forest Conservation Act, 1980: This act defines a forest, inclusive of all types of forests, including private forests.

These sections were invoked and discussed throughout the legal proceedings and played a significant role in shaping the judgment of the court.

ISSUE –

The main issue in this case revolves around the ownership and status of the land in question. Here are the key points regarding the issue:

1. Title and Ownership: The plaintiff claims ownership of the land based on an application filed under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, seeking rectification of survey errors. However, the defendants argue that the land is forest land and has been declared as reserved forest under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act.
2. Jurisdiction: There is a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of various authorities, including the Revenue Department and the Forest Department, in dealing with the land. The defendants argue that the plaintiff’s application under the Land Revenue Act lacks relevancy or connection with the concluded proceeding under the Forest Act.
3. Validity of Proceedings: The validity of various proceedings, including the rejection of the plaintiff’s application, the subsequent review, and the actions of the District Collector, are called into question. The plaintiff challenges the legality of these proceedings, while the defendants argue that they were conducted within the bounds of the law.
4. Maintainability of Suit: The defendants question the maintainability of the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff failed to challenge the proceedings under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, which have become final and conclusive.

Overall, the main issue revolves around the conflicting claims of ownership and jurisdiction over the land, as well as the validity and maintainability of the legal proceedings initiated by the plaintiff.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court observed a lack of jurisdiction in the High Court’s actions post-decree, especially considering the land’s status as forest land. It noted the impropriety of the District Collector’s involvement and the absence of necessary parties in the proceedings. The court concluded that the suit was not maintainable due to the finality of earlier proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act.

The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the original judgment was restored. Costs were imposed on both parties, and the appellant State was directed to investigate and take action against officers responsible for filing incorrect affidavits. The contempt case was directed to be closed.

This case highlights the importance of jurisdictional boundaries, finality of proceedings, and adherence to legal processes in land disputes, especially concerning forest lands.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A

Click here to view Judgement