Explore a recent court judgment delving into the legalities of a complex land dispute. The court’s analysis highlights the significance of proving land classification, adherence to legal procedures, and equitable treatment of parties involved. This blog post provides a comprehensive overview of the court’s legal reasoning and its implications on the case at hand.
Facts
- The State of Karnataka has appealed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated 16.04.2021 in Regular First Appeal No.1287 of 2012
- The High Court dismissed the State’s appeal in a case regarding declaration, possession, and permanent injunction filed by the State-appellant
- The Trial Court’s judgment of 08.03.2012 was confirmed by the High Court, stating the failure of the State to prove the scheduled land as forest land due to the absence of PW1 for cross-examination
- The appellant argues that adequate opportunity should have been given to produce PW1 or an alternative witness, and that the Trial Court acted hastily in deciding the suit in less than 45 days from PW1’s absence
- A joint survey was conducted on 09.01.2015, post a High Court judgment quashing criminal proceedings under Forest Act against the respondent
- The survey was done physically and by aerial means, with the report and material submitted under an application of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC during the pendency of the First Appeal
- The High Court, in its judgment of 16.04.2021, not only dismissed the appeal but also rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, which the appellant contests
- State of Karnataka preferred Regular First Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka registered as RFA No.1287 of 2012.
- Broader survey both physical as well as aerial was carried out on 09.01.2015 after due notice to respondent No.1.
- State of Karnataka instituted OS No 34 of 1997 against respondent No.1 for declaration of the land being part of Bhuvanahalli Forest block.
- Respondent No.1 claimed possession but faced interference from State authorities, leading to approaching the Civil Court.
- OS No 600 of 1981 was filed by respondent No.1 for permanent injunction against forest department, appeal allowed in 1989.
- State of Karnataka filed Regular Second Appeal No. 673 of 1996 before the High Court.
- Criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 under forest laws.
- Appellant-State moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 for evidence relating to survey during RFA No.1287 of 2012.
- Survey team comprised of officers from Revenue and Forest Departments for survey.
- Auction sale held in 1936, Survey No. 69 purchased by T.N.Subbaraiya Mudaliar, later sold to respondent No.1 in 1977.
Also Read: Non-compliance with requirements of Section 81(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
Arguments
- (i) The land in dispute was declared in 1921 as forest land, therefore it could not have been auctioned and sold to the respondent.
- (ii) The petitioner argued that the auction sale in 1936 and the subsequent sale deed in 1977 were illegal and should have been challenged.
- (iii) The petitioner claimed that the State was acting in a discriminatory manner by singling out the respondent and not taking action against other landowners of the same area.
- (iv) The partition of Survey No 69 by revenue authorities into subplots indicated that it was not forest land.
- (v) The petitioner emphasized that the entire area of Survey No 69 was fully developed and not suitable to be classified as forest land.
- (vi) The revenue entries in favor of auction purchasers and their successors supported the petitioner’s claim.
- (vii) Criminal proceedings initiated by the State against the respondent were quashed by the High Court.
- (viii) Reference was made to the case of Elizabeth Jacob vs District Collector, Iddukki & Ors., to argue that merely alleging land as forest land is not sufficient, it must be established by the State which was not done in this case.
Also Read: Setting Minimum Qualifying Marks for Viva Voce: A Question of Legality
Analysis
- Notification under the Forest Regulation Survey No 67 was covered in 1921.
- Survey No 67 (old) was renumbered in resurvey as Survey No 69 (new) in 1979.
- State was denied adequate opportunity by the Courts below.
- Certain material documents were not considered by the courts below.
- Matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for a fresh determination.
- Survey No 69 (new) was notified as Forest Land in 1921.
- Trial Court should have given adequate opportunity to the State.
- It is crucial that the Trial Court extends time for producing a witness and supporting material.
- Not going into greater details of the merits of the matter to prevent prejudice in the fresh determination.
- Changed numbers allotted after the resurvey were not considered by the lower courts.
- Forest Range Officer PW-1 did not appear for cross-examination on the specified date in 2012.
- Admission of survey reports and related material was relevant for the proper adjudication of issues in the suit.
- IA No.1 of 2021 was filed to place the survey documents as evidence based on the High Court order in 2012.
Also Read: Willful Disobedience and Rectification of Court Orders
Decision
- The appeal was allowed due to the High Court’s error in rejecting IA No.1 of 2021.
- The Trial Court is expected to make efforts to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within one year, considering its filing in 1997.
- The judgments of both the High Court dated 16.04.2021 and the Trial Court dated 08.03.2012 are set aside.
- Parties are required to cooperate for the prompt disposal of the suit.
- The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh decision, allowing the appellant to present both documentary and oral evidence and the respondent a right to rebut with oral and documentary evidence.
- No costs are ordered in this matter.
Case Title: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M.A. MOHAMAD SANAULLA (2022 INSC 990)
Case Number: C.A. No.-005801-005801 / 2022
