Suit – for declaration of ownership – The plaintiffsrespondents filed a suit for a direction to delete the name of ‘Forest department’ from the survey entry No. 11/1 of a Village and to declare the plaintiffs as the exclusive owners of the said property – The defendants-appellant, the State, had filed a written statementcum-counter claim refuting the claim of the plaintiffs and claimed that entire suit property was in possession and belonged to the Forest Department – In the counter-claim, it was pleaded that plaintiffs were wrongly recorded as co-occupants – The Trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the counter-claim filed by the defendants- State was also rejected – The plaintiffs having not filed any appeal against the rejection of the claim, the judgment of the Trial Court has become final, however, the defendants filed appeal in the High Court, which was dismissed – On appeal, held: A proceeding sheet of Court for record of rights (correction of records) indicated that on 20.10.1975, one of the plaintiff made a statement that he wished to withdraw his application dated 07.08.1975 regarding a claim that the survey no.11/1 belonged to plaintiffs, it was addressed to Mamlatdar for record of rights and hence, the dispute case was closed – Even after withdrawal of the claim of plaintiff, the names of plaintiffs were added by correcting the Form III in red ink as required by sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Record of Rights and Register of cultivators) Rules, 1969 – When there was no decision in favour of the plaintiffs, applicant on the objection filed by them, there was no question of adding their names in Index of Lands against survey No.11/1 – The recording of names of the plaintiffs in survey no. 11/1 along with the name of the Forest Department was illegal and not per 1969 rules – The plaintiffs failed to justify the continuance of their names against survey No. 11/1 – Further, in the suit, the plaintiffs did not mention/disclose proceeding regarding the correction of records undertaken in 1975 – From the additional evidence brought on the record by the State, it is clear that in record published, it was only the name of the Forest Department – Even though Gazette dated 11.01.1951 does not mention survey no. 11 but forest was declared in the village and the survey no. 11 is forest land is proved by other evidence – Thus, the defendant-State has clearly made out the case for allowing counter-claim – Accordingly, the name of the plaintiffsrespondents from survey no. 11/1 directed to be struck off.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The record of proceeding sheet dated 20.10.1975 indicates that after recording the statement of one of the Plaintiff the case was closed. The said proceedings indicate that the objection filed by Plaintiff was withdrawn and hence there was no decision taken in Dispute Case No.3. Even after withdrawal of the claim by the plaintiff, the names of plaintiffs were added by correcting the Form III in red ink as required by sub-Rule(6) of Rule 6. The entry of names of the above persons along with Forest Department was stated to be as per D.C.3 as is clear from Form III Annexure-2 brought on record by the appellant. A coloured print of above Annexure-2 has been placed before this Court by ASG which is taken on record, which indicates that in Form III the addition of names of three persons was by red ink. When plaintiff had withdrawn his claim for deletion of name of Forest Department, this Court fails to comprehend that as to how despite that withdrawal which is duly recorded in the proceedings their names can be added along with Forest Department against survey No.11/1. Thus, the recording of names of the plaintiffs in survey No.11/1 along with the name of the Forest Department was illegal and not as per Rule 6 of Rules, 1969. When there was no decision in favour of the plaintiffs, applicant on the objection dated 07.08.1975, there was no question of adding their names in Index of Lands against survey No.11/1. The addition of the names of the plaintiffs against survey No.11/1 was completely without jurisdiction and the said entry cannot be allowed to be continued. [Para 18][539-D-H; 540-A]
2. That in the suit filed by the plaintiffs, there is no mention of entire proceedings regarding correction of records undertaken in 1975. The plaintiffs in the suit did not disclose the aforesaid facts which were relevant for determining the issues in consideration in the suit. Plaintiffs thus have completely failed to justify the continuance of their names against survey No.11/1. [Para 19][540-B]
3. From the additional evidence brought on the record by the State, it is clear that in the record which was published of the Village Sulcarna for survey No.11, it was the name of only Forest Department which was mentioned on survey No.11 area 230.45.00 hectares and the addition of the name of Plaintiff and two others were in pursuance of Dispute Case No.3. The Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 was enacted to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Land and Land Revenue in the Union of territory of Goa, Daman and Diu as then existed. [Para 20][540C-D]
4. The respondents themselves claim that the documents which have been filed are public records and in public domain, only objection raised by the respondents is that it was not difficult for the State to have had knowledge and access to these documents. The veracity of the documents has not been disputed. [Para 22][542-D-E]
5. More so, the plaintiffs ought to have agitated for their claim with regard to survey No.11/1 and ought not to have withdrawn application dated 07.08.1975 before the Revenue Official. It is relevant to notice that in the suit which was filed by the plaintiffs any mention of the proceedings regarding records of rights of survey No.11/1 undertaken earlier were not referred to and the mention of proceedings under Revenue Code, 1968 and Rules, 1969 is conspicuously absent. The trial court having dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaring them owner of survey No.11/1, this Court does not find any justification for continuance of the names of the plaintiffs in survey No.11/1 of Village Sulcorna. [Para 25][543-B-C]
6. The State in its written statement has claimed that Sulcorna has declared as forest by Gazette Notification dated 11.01.1951 which Gazette was filed as Annexure AA-3 filed on the record which mentions Forests Sulcorna and the name of Village Sulcorna, the Court below had not placed reliance on the said Gazette only for the reason that the Gazette does not mention any survey number. Survey No.11 was situate in the Forest area is further proved by the documents brought on the record by the appellant i.e. Mining Lease which was granted w.e.f 22.11.1987 for survey No.2 of Village Curpem and survey No.11 of Village Sulcorna. [Para 26][543-D-E]
7. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was to delete the name of Forest Department from survey No.11 which suit having been dismissed the name of the Forest Department continues with regard to survey No.11/1. Even though Gazette dated 11.01.1951 does not mention survey No.11 but Forest was declared in Village Sulcorna and Survey No.11 is forest land is proved by other evidence. This Court is satisfied that the counter-claim filed by the State deserved to be allowed and the name of the plaintiffsrespondents from survey No.11/1 deserved to be struck off. [Para 28][544-A-B]
Fabrica da Igreja de N.s. de Milagres v. Union of India and Others (1995) 1 Bom CR 588 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.