Supreme Court imposes Rs. 5 lakhs cost on Telangana for abdication of duty to protect and preserve forests

Supreme Court: In an appeal filed by the State of Telangana against the Telangana High Court judgment setting aside the concurrent judgments rendered by the Trial Court and the then High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh (1994 Judgment)., and holding that Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (‘A.P. Forest Act’ )which speaks about the bar of a suit can only be applied during the pendency of proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act and not thereafter, the division bench of MM Sundresh* and SVN Bhatti, JJ. has set aside the impugned judgment and restored the judgement rendered in 1994. Further, it imposed a cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on the State and respondents to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. Further, the Bench allowed the State to enquire into the lapses committed by the officers in filing collusive affidavits before the competent court and recover the same from those officers who are responsible for facilitating and filing incorrect affidavits in the ongoing proceedings.

Background:

Between the years 1950-1959, a revision of survey and settlement of village took place. It was concluded on 17-11-1960. An application has been filed by respondent (plaintiff), invoking Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, (‘A.P. Land Revenue Act’) seeking rectification of survey error. It was so filed on the premise that the respondent owned the suit land. A notification was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 11-11-1971 by the State Government, under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, declaring the land, which was part of the earlier proceedings of the revenue department dated 17-11-1960, as reserved forest. It was done on the premise that the lands were forest lands and, therefore, they were accordingly declared as reserved forest.

A suit was filed by the respondent in 1985, seeking a declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Trial Court while granting title to the respondent declined the incidental relief of injunction. On appeal, the High Court, by giving adequate reasons reversed the said finding of the Trial Court qua the declaration and confirmed the findings on injunction by dismissing the suit in toto. It was held that the suit property is forest land. It further held that the respondent had miserably failed to show his title to the suit property. The proceedings concluded under the A.P. Forest Act, though not specifically challenged, and without the proper and necessary parties, were found to be just and proper.

Thereafter, the High Court in review jurisdiction, held that Section 5 of the A.P. Forest Act which speaks about the bar of a suit can only be applied during the pendency of proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act and not thereafter.

Submissions:

The State contended that 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.

The respondent contended that the Trial Court has held that the respondent had title. Once title is proved, possession has to follow. 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.

Analysis and Decision:

The Court took note of A.P. Forest Act, and said that it has been enacted with a laudable objective of conserving, protecting, and extending the forest cover, with a sound mechanism to deal with all the disputes arising thereunder while declaring land as reserved forest.

The Court said that it is a classic case where the officials of the State who are expected to protect and preserve the forests in discharge of their public duties clearly abdicated their role.

The Court questioned that how the High Court could interfere by placing reliance upon evidence produced after the decree, at the instance of a party which succeeded along with the contesting defendant, particularly in the light of the finding that the land is forest land which has become part of reserved forest. There is a distinct lack of jurisdiction on two counts — one is with respect to an attempt made to circumvent the decree and, the second is in acting without jurisdiction.

The Court said that the land belongs to the Forest Department and therefore, respondent 1 had absolutely no role in dealing with it in any manner. Proceeding under the A.P. Land Revenue Act has got no relevancy or connection with a concluded proceeding under the A.P. Forest Act. The proceeding under the A. P. Forest Act was concluded on 11-11-1971. Thereafter, without any jurisdiction, an order was passed under Section 87 of the A.P. Land Revenue Act.

The Court was surprised that the High Court which is expected to act within the statutory limitation went beyond and graciously gifted the forest land to a private person who could not prove his title.

The Court noted that while disposing of the first appeal, the High Court exercised its power under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for partly reversing the Trial Court decree. Further, the Bench viewed that the High Court showed utmost interest and benevolence in allowing the review by setting aside the well merited judgment in the appeal by replacing its views in all material aspects.

While examining the question of maintainability of a suit for the relief of declaration, the Court said that the suit filed is not maintainable as the respondent (plaintiff) has not challenged the proceedings under Section 15 of A. P. Forest Act. Rather, the respondent filed an application for denotification before the Government, which was rejected. Neither the State Government, which rejected the said application, nor the Forest Settlement Officer has been made as party defendants in the suit, with the State arrayed as respondent represented by the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, at a later stage in the appeal. Though, the Forest Officer of the Forest Department may be an interested party, the authority who otherwise could answer is the Forest Settlement Officer.

The Court said that in any case, the said exercise is irrelevant as the respondent could not prove his title nor does there lie any relevance to the action taken under the A.P. Land Revenue Act. Furthermore, there is no specific challenge to the concluded proceedings under the A. P. Forest Act. The respondent has merely asked for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the State from interfering with possession.