{"id":102672,"date":"2003-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003"},"modified":"2017-12-14T06:09:20","modified_gmt":"2017-12-14T00:39:20","slug":"chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Chief Conservator Of Forests, … vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chief Conservator Of Forests, … vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 1805, 2003 (4) ALD 27 SC, 2003 (2) JCR 175 SC, JT 2003 (5) SC 210, (2003) 2 MLJ 57 SC, 2003 (2) SCALE 429, (2003) 3 SCC 472, 2003 2 SCR 180<\/div>\n
Author: S S Quardi<\/div>\n
Bench: S Quadri, A Bhan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Syed Shah Mohammed Quardi, J. <\/p>\n
1. These two appeals are from the common judgment of a
\nDivision Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ
\nPetition (C) No. 3414 of 1982 and Appeal Suit No. 2291 of
\n1986 dated 24th January, 1989.\n<\/p>\n
   2. The appeals arise on the same facts and one set of the
\nparties is common. The subject matter of litigation is an
\nextent of acres 2423.37 in Jatprole Jagir, Kollapur Taluk,
\nMahboobnagar District in the erstwhile the Nizam’s State of
\nHyderabad. After the accession of the Nizam’s State of
\nHyderabad with the Union of India, the Andhra Pradesh
\n(Abolition of Jagirs) Regulations, 1358 Fasli (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Regulation’) came into force on September
\n20, 1949. Under that Regulations, all Jagirs, including the
\nJatprole Jagir, stood abolished from that date and their
\nadministration stood vested in the State. Raja S.V.
\nJagannadha Rao was the last Jagirdar. Respondent No.s 3 and 4
\nare his legal representatives [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nPattedars’]. It is the case of the pattedars that when the
\nState took over the Jagir, the Forest Department of the State
\ntook under its control the forest land, measuring acres
\n1,20,824. However, the lands comprised in Survey No. 11 of
\nAsadpur village measuring acres 1523 and Survey No. 168 of
\nMalachintnapalli village measuring acres 9000 continued to
\nremained in the possession of the Raja as his patta lands.
\nSoon thereafter, Notification No. 282 under Section 29 of the
\nAndhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Forest Act, 1355 Fasli [for
\nshort, ‘the Forest Act’] was issued on December 4, 1950. The
\nnotification enumerated fourteen villages comprising of an
\nextent of 93,030 acres of Kollapur taluk Mahboobnagar
\nDistrict, which was named as Kollapur range. It appears that
\na notification under Section 30 of the Forest Act was also
\nissued but that notification is not on record. In the year
\n1953, re-survey of the erstwhile Jagir was conducted. The
\nlands in question, namely, Survey No. 40 (old) was assigned
\nSurvey No. 11 and Survey No. 241 (old) was assigned Survey
\nNo. 168; however, the finalisation of the survey was done in
\n1962. The Pattedars filed an application under Section 87 of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317
\nFasli [for short, ‘the Land Revenue Act’] to rectify the
\nmistake noted in the settlement record pursuant to the said
\nre-survey. The mistake was alleged to be that the name of the
\nKhatedar was not shown against the said survey numbers which
\nwere shown as ‘Mahasura’ (protected). The District Collector,
\nafter conducting the necessary enquiry and on a joint
\ninspection in which the Land Record Assistant and the Forest
\nRange Officer participated and in which working plan was
\nproduced showing the area as the patta of the late Jagirdar,
\npassed an order on April 25, 1966 directing rectification of
\nthe settlement record. Based on the said order, the Director
\nof Settlement rectified the records and issued a supplementary
\nsetwar on May 11, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
3. Under the Forest Act, a person who transports forest
\nproduce is required to obtain transit permit. Though in the
\npast, the Pattedars were transporting forest produce on
\nobtaining transit permits, it was, however, denied to them on
\ntheir application made on October 14, 1966. It is worth
\nnoticing that the Tehsildar of those villages recommended
\ngranting of transit permits showing the lands as patta lands.
\nIt was for the first time that the Forest Department appeared
\nto have taken the plea that the lands in question were forest
\nlands and the Chief Conservator of Forest (Appellant No. 1 in
\nCivil Appeal No. 8580 of 1994) expressed that the lands in
\nquestion were forest land and doubted they were patta lands of
\nthe Pattedars. The doubt expressed by the Chief Conservator
\nof Forest in regard to the nature of the said lands led to a
\nfurther probe into the matter as to whether the lands
\ncomprised in the aforementioned survey numbers were treated as
\npart of Jagir at the time of taking over the Jagir or whether
\nthey were treated as patta lands of the Raja. In view of the
\nqueries made by the Chief Conservator of Forest, the
\nCollector, Mahboobnagar District formulated as many as five
\nquestions and directed the Tehsildar to furnish replies
\nthereto. On May 2, 1972, the Tehsildar replied that the lands
\nin question were patta lands and assessed to land revenue;
\nthere was nothing on record to show that they were taken over
\nalong with the Jagir and other forest area under the
\nsupervision of the Government. A letter No. D.Dis.J\/2706\/72
\ndated 21st October, 1972 from the R.D.O. addressed to the
\nCollector discloses that from the accounts maintained for the
\nperiod prior to the re-survey in the year 1953, rectification
\nof the record and issuance of supplementary setwar, it was
\nproved that the lands in question were the personal property
\nof the late Raja. Further, on January 16, 1974, a letter was
\naddressed by the Director of Settlement to the Chief
\nConservator of Forest that the lands in question were in
\npossession of the respondents prior to the abolition of Jagirs
\nand that the matter did not require any further examination as
\nthe rectification of record was made under Section 87 of the
\nLand Revenue Act. There is a reference to the report of the
\nR.D.O. dated 31st October, 1975, which was made on inspection
\nand after making local enquiries, stating that the lands were
\nin possession of the Pattedars as private patta land. While
\nso, the Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed to acquire the
\nlands in question which were likely to be submerged upon
\ncompletion of the Srisailam Project. Two notification were
\nissued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
\nfirst was issued on January 31, 1975 proposing to acquire 410
\nacres out of the land in Survey No. 11 in Asadpur village and
\nthe second was issued on November 4, 1976 proposing to acquire
\nan extent of 45 acres and 20 guntas of land in Survey No. 168
\nin Malachintapalli village for Srisailam Project. However,
\nthe Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders cancelling the
\nsaid notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 and withdrawing from the acquisition, on
\nthe ground that the said lands were Government lands, on
\nFebruary 16, 1978. The said order was assailed by the
\nPattedars in Writ Petition (C) No. 2084 of 1978 before the
\nHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court quashed the
\nrecital in the impugned order of the Government that the said
\nlands belonged to the Government but in other respects
\nmaintained the same by partly allowing the writ petition on
\nFebruary 21, 1979. This gave rise to filing of a declaratory
\nsuit by the Pattedars and ordering further enquiry into the
\nmatter by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
4. In view of the dispute between the two departments of
\nthe Government with regard to the title to the lands in
\nquestion, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders on
\n17th August, 1979 directing the Commissioner of Survey,
\nSettlement and Land Record to make an enquiry under Section
\n166-B of the Land Revenue Act and to pass a speaking order
\nafter hearing the parties concerned. While the enquiry was
\npending, the Pattedars filed the suit (O.S. No. 73 of 1979,
\nwhich was re-numbered as O.S. 7 of 1984) in the court of the
\nlearned Subordinate Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahboobnagar District,
\nfor a declaration of title, recovery of compensation for the
\nlands in question and for rendition of accounts. Pursuant to
\nthe said order of the Government, the Commissioner conducted
\nan enquiry, heard both the parties and opined that the
\norder of the Collector, passed under Section 87 of the
\nLand Revenue Act, was correct and did not call for any
\ninterference therewith. That order was passed by the
\nCommissioner on December 5, 1981. The Government apparently
\naccepted that order of the Commissioner as no further steps
\nwere taken by it to correct or set aside that order. However,
\nthe doubt in the mind of the Chief Conservator of Forest still
\npersisted and he filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3414 of 1982 in
\nthe High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the order of the
\nCommissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record dated
\nDecember 5, 1981.\n<\/p>\n
5. The trial court, after conducting trial and on
\nconsideration of the evidence on record, decreed the suit with
\ncosts, insofar as the reliefs of declaration of title and
\nrendition of accounts but declined the relief of award of
\ncompensation\/damages by judgment  and decree dated March 25,
\n1985. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned
\nSubordinate Judge, the defendants – the Land Acquisition
\nOfficer, Mahboobnagar District and the Government of Andhra
\nPradesh represented by the Collector, Mahboobnagar – filed
\nAppeal No. 2291 of 1986, before the High Court of Andhra
\nPradesh. The afore-mentioned Writ Petition (C) No. 3414 of
\n1983 and Appeal No. 2291 of 1986 were heard together and
\ndismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by a common
\njudgment on April 21, 1989, which is the subject matter of
\nchallenge in the appeals before us.\n<\/p>\n
6. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe Pattedars-respondents in Civil Appeal No. 8530 of 1994
\nand Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor the Pattedars-respondents in Civil Appeal No. 9097 of
\n1995, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability
\nof the writ petition filed by the Chief Conservator of Forest
\nas well as the appeal arising therefrom. Article 300 of the
\nConstitution of India, it is contended, provides that the
\nGovernment of a State may sue or be sued in the name of the
\nState; Section 79 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908
\ndirects that the State shall be the authority to be named as
\nplaintiff or defendant in a suit by or against the Government
\nand Section 80 thereof directs notice to the Secretary to that
\nState or the Collector of the District before the institution
\nof the suit; and Rule 1 of Order 27 lays down as to who
\nshould sign the pleadings. No individual officer of the
\nGovernment under the scheme of the Constitution or the Code of
\nCivil Procedure can file a suit or initiate any proceeding in
\nthe name of the post he is holding, which is not a juristic
\nperson. Ms. K. Amreswari, learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor the appellants, has argued that before filing the appeal,
\nthe Chief Conservator of Forest had obtained orders and,
\ntherefore, the writ petition and the appeal should be deemed
\nto be filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh; not naming
\nthe Government of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petition as the
\npetitioner or in the appeal as the appellant is only a
\nprocedural matter and, therefore, it is not fatal to the
\nmaintainability of the writ petition and the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
7. To appreciate the contention of the learned senior
\ncounsel, it will be useful to refer to the relevant provisions
\nof the Constitution of India [for short, ‘the Constitution’]
\nand the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, ‘the
\nC.P.C.’]. Article 300 of the Constitution falls in Chapter
\nIII, which deals with property, contract, rights, liabilities,
\nobligations and suits. Article 300 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“300. Suits and proceedings.– (1) The
\nGovernment of India may sue or be sued by the
\nname of the Union of India and the Government
\nof a State may use or be sued by the name of
\nthe State and may, subject to any provisions
\nwhich may be made by Act of Parliament or of
\nthe Legislature of such State enacted by virtue
\nof powers conferred by this Constitution, sue
\nor be sued in relation to their respective
\naffairs in the like cases as the Dominion of
\nIndia and the corresponding Provinces or the
\ncorresponding Indian States might have sued or
\nbeen sued if this Constitution had not been
\nenacted.\n<\/p>\n
(2) If at the commencement of this
\nConstitution–\n<\/p>\n
(a) any legal proceedings are pending to which
\nthe Dominion of India is a party, the Union of
\nIndia shall be deemed to be substituted for the
\nDominion in those proceedings; and<\/p>\n
(b) any legal proceedings are pending to which
\na Province or an Indian State is a party, the
\ncorresponding State shall be deemed to be
\nsubstituted for the Province or the Indian State
\nin those proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
8. From a perusal of the provision, extracted above, it is
\nevident that the Government of India as also the Government of
\na State may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India
\nor by the name of the State respectively, subject, of course,
\nto any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of
\nLegislature of such State by virtue of powers conferred by the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
9. Section 79 of the C.P.C. deals with suits by or
\nagainst the Government. It reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“79. Suits by or against Government.– In a
\nsuit by or against the Government, the
\nauthority to be named as plaintiff or
\ndefendant, as the case may be, shall be–\n<\/p>\n
(a) in the case of a suit by or against the
\nCentral Government, the Union of India; and<\/p>\n
(b) in the case of a suit by or against a
\nState Government, the State.”\n<\/p>\n
10. A plain reading of Section 79 shows that in a suit by
\nor against the Government, the authority to be named as
\nplaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, in the case of the
\nCentral Government, the Union of India and in the case of the
\nState Government, the State, which is suing or is being sued.\n<\/p>\n
11. Order 27 of Rule 1, as mentioned above, deals with
\nsuits by or against the Government or by officers in their
\nofficial capacity. Rule 1 of Order 27 C.P.C. says that in
\nany suit by or against the Government, the plaint or the
\nwritten statement shall be signed by such person as the
\nGovernment may be general or special order appoint in that
\nbehalf and shall be verified by any person whom the Government
\nmay so appoint.\n<\/p>\n
12. In needs to be noted here that a legal entity – a
\nnatural person or an artificial person – can sue or be sued in
\nhis\/its own name in a court of law or a Tribunal. It is not
\nmerely a procedural formality but is essentially a mater of
\nsubstance and considerable significance. That is why there
\nare special provisions in the Constitution and the Code of
\nCivil Procedure as to how the Central Government or the
\nGovernment of a State may sue or be sued. So also there are
\nspecial provisions in regard to other juristic persons
\nspecifying as to how they can sue or be sued. In giving
\ndescription of a party it will be useful to remember the
\ndistinction between misdescription or misnomer of a party and
\nmisjoinder or non-joinder of a party seeing or being sued. In
\nthe case of misdescription of a party, the court may at any
\nstage of the suit\/proceedings permit correction of the cause
\ntitle so that the party before the court is correctly
\ndescribed; however a misdescription of a party will not be
\nfatal to the maintainability of the suit\/proceedings. Though
\nRule 9 of Order 1 of C.P.C. mandates that no suit shall be
\ndefeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of
\nparties, it is important to notice that the proviso thereto
\nclarifies that nothing in that Rule shall apply to non-joinder
\nof a necessary party. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure
\nthat the necessary party is before the court, be it a
\nplaintiff or a defendant, otherwise, the suit or the
\nproceedings will have to fail. Rule 10 of Order 1 C.P.C.
\nprovides remedy when a suit is filed in the name of wrong
\nplaintiff and empowers the court to strike out any party
\nimproperly joined or to implead a necessary party at any stage
\nof the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
13. The question that needs to be addressed is, whether the
\nChief Conservator of Forest as the petitioner\/appellant in the
\nwrit petition\/appeal is a mere misdescription for the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh or whether it is a case of non-joinder of the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh – a necessary party. In a lis dealing
\nwith the property of a State, there can be no dispute that the
\nState is the necessary party and should be impleaded as
\nprovided in Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of
\nC.P.C., viz., in the name of the State\/Union of India, as the
\ncase may be, lest the suit will be bad for non-joinder of the
\nnecessary party. Even post in the hierarchy of the posts in
\nthe Government set-up, from the lowest to the highest, is not
\nrecognised as a juristic person nor can the State be treated
\nas represented when a suit\/proceeding is in the name of such
\noffices\/posts or the officers holding such posts, therefore,
\nin the absence of the State in the array of parties, the cause
\nwill be defeated for non-joinder of a necessary party to the
\nlis, in any court or Tribunal. We make it clear that this
\nprinciple does not apply to a case where an official of the
\nGovernment acts as a statutory authority and sues or pursues
\nfurther proceeding in its name because in that event, it will
\nnot be a suit or proceeding for or on behalf of a State\/Union
\nof India but by the statutory authority as such.\n<\/p>\n
14. Under the scheme of the Constitution, Article 131
\nconfers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard
\nto a dispute between two States of the Union of India or
\nbetween one or more States and the Union of India. It was not
\ncontemplated by the framers of the Constitution or the C.P.C.
\nthat two departments of a State or the Union of India will
\nfight a litigation in a court of law. It is neither
\nappropriate nor permissible for two departments of a State or
\nthe Union of India to fight litigation in a court of law.
\nIndeed, such a course cannot but be detrimental to the public
\ninterest as it also entails avoidable wastage of public money
\nand time. Various departments of the Government are its limbs
\nand, therefore, they must act in coordination and not in
\nconfrontation. Filing of a writ petition by one department
\nagainst the other by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction
\nof the High Court is not only against the propriety and polity
\nas it smacks of indiscipline but is also contrary to the basic
\nconcept of law which requires that for suing or being sued,
\nthere must be either a natural or a juristic person. The
\nStates\/Union of India must evolve a mechanism to set at rest
\nall inter-departmental controversies at the level of the
\nGovernment and such matters should not be carried to a court
\nof law for resolution of the controversy. In the case of
\ndisputes between public sector undertakings and Union of
\nIndia, this Court  in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v.
\n Collector of Central Excise<\/a> (1992 Suppl. (2) S.C.C. 432)
\ncalled upon the Cabinet Secretary to handle such matters. In
\n Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Anr. v.  Collector of
\nCentral Excise<\/a> (1995 Suppl. (4) S.C.C. 541), this Court
\ndirected the Central Government to set up a Committee
\nconsisting of representatives from the Ministry of Industry,
\nthe Bureau of Public Enterprises and the Ministry of Law, to
\nmonitor disputes between Ministry and Ministry of the
\nGovernment of India, Ministry and public sector undertakings
\nof the Government of India and public sector undertakings in
\nbetween themselves, to ensure that no litigation comes to
\ncourt or to a Tribunal without the matter having been first
\nexamined by the Committee and its clearance for litigation.
\nThe Government may include a representative of the Ministry
\nconcerned in a specific case and one from the Ministry of
\nFinance in the Committee. Senior officers only should be
\nnominated so that the Committee would function with status,
\ncontrol and discipline.\n<\/p>\n
15. The facts of this appeal, noticed above, make out a
\nstrong case that there is a felt need of setting up of similar
\ncommittees by the State Governments also to resolve the
\ncontroversy arising between various departments of the State
\nor the State and any of its undertakings. It would be
\nappropriate for the State Governments to set up a Committee
\nconsisting of the Chief Secretary of the State, the
\nSecretaries of the concerned departments, the Secretary of Law
\nand where financial commitments are involved, the Secretary of
\nFinance. The decision taken by such a committee shall be
\nbinding on all the departments concerned and shall be the
\nstand of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
16. Now, reverting to the facts of the case on hand, we are
\nof the view that after the said statutory order of the
\nCommissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record, the matter
\nshould have rested there. We have, therefore, no hesitation
\nincoming to the conclusion that it was not only inappropriate
\nbut also illegal for the Chief Conservator of Forest, though
\nhe might have done so in all good faith, to have questioned
\nthe order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land
\nRecord before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ
\nPetition (C) No. 3414 of 1982. The Chief Conservator of
\nForests as the petitioner can neither be treated as the State
\nof Andhra Pradesh nor can it be a case of misdescription of
\nthe State of Andhra Pradesh. The fact is that the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh was not the petitioner. Therefore, the writ
\npetition was not maintainable in law. The High Court, had it
\ndeemed fit so to do, would have added the State of Andhra
\nPradesh as a party; however, it proceeded, in our view
\nerroneously, as if the State of Andhra Pradesh was the
\npetitioner which, as a matter of fact, was not the case and
\ncould not have been treated as such. As the writ petition
\nitself was not maintainable, it follows as a corollary that
\nthe appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forests is also not
\nmaintainable. We are unable to accept the contention of Ms.
\nAmreswari that merely because the concerned officer had
\nobtained the permission of the Government to file an appeal,
\nwhich is not placed before us, the writ petition and the
\nappeal should be treated as an appeal by the Government of
\nAndhra Pradesh. The permission granted to the concerned
\nauthority might be a permission to file an appeal which cannot
\nreasonably be construed as authorisation to file the appeal in
\nhis own name, contrary to law. It could only be a permission
\nto file the appeal in the name of the State of Andhra Pradesh
\nin accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the
\nC.P.C. We may also record that in spite of the Pattedars
\ntaking objection to that effect at the earliest, no steps were
\ntaken to substitute or implead the State of Andhra Pradesh in
\nthe writ petition in the High Court or in the appeal in this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
17. Now, we shall deal with Civil Appeal No. 9097 of 1995,
\nwhich arises out of the suit filed by the respondents herein.
\nThe respondents-plaintiff claimed in the suit that the land
\nmeasuring 748.24 acres out of Survey No. 11 of Asadpur village
\nand land measuring 45.20 acres out of Survey No. 168 of
\nMalachintapalli village in Kollapur Taluk, Mahboobnagar
\nDistrict be declared as the patta lands of the plaintiffs and
\nthey be awarded compensation for the said lands, which was
\nsubmerged in the Srisailam Project. The said lands were
\nclaimed to be ancestral patta lands and constituted private
\nHome-Farm land of Plaintiff No. 1 and his father and were being
\nenjoyed as grazing land for their cattle and for cattle
\nbreeding farm. The plaintiffs had been paying land revenue in
\nrespect of those lands since the abolition of Jagir in 1949.
\nThe appellants denied that the suit land was patta land and
\nhome-farm land of the pattedars. It was pleaded that they
\nwere forest lands of the State. To establish their claim, the
\nPattedars produced two witnesses. The first witness was one
\nof the Pattedars and the second was the Tehsildar of the Jagir
\nJatprole for the period November, 1937 to September, 1949.
\nThey also filed supplementary setwar, Exhibit A-1. During the
\nperiod 1954 to 1958, permission was granted to the Pattedars
\nby the Government for cutting forest wood; permission letters
\nwere filed as Exhibits A-2 to A-9. These documents show the
\nexercise of right as owner over the suit lands. Exhibit A-10
\nwas filed to prove that in the village map, the suit lands
\nwere shown as patta lands. In support of the plea for payment
\nof the land revenue after the abolition of Jagir from 1951 to
\n1974, Exhibits A-11 to A-26 were filed. Those receipts
\nrelated to Asadpur village. Exhibits A-27 to A-44 are
\nreceipts for payment of land revenue in respect of the land in
\nMalachintapalli village. To prove that prior to the abolition
\nof Jagirs, the suit lands were under the control of the last
\nJagirdar, Exhibits A-46 to A-50 were filed which relate to the
\nperiod 1312 Fasli to 1328 Fasli and show the expenditure
\nincurred by the last Jagirdar in respect of the suit lands.
\nThe pahani patrika for the period 1972-1973 and 1983-84 were
\nalso filed as Exhibit A-53 to A-55 but they may not be really
\nrelevant because they relate to the period after the dispute
\nhad arisen between the parties. As against this evidence not
\nan iota of evidence was placed on record by the Government to
\nestablish that the lands were taken over at the time of
\nabolition of the Jagirs or that they form part of the forest
\narea and\/or otherwise vested in the Government. The trial
\ncourt as well as the Division Bench of the High Court believed
\nthe oral and documentary evidence to decree the suit of the
\npattedars for declaration of title and for rendition of
\naccounts. However, the relief of compensation was declined.\n<\/p>\n
18. Mr. Salve has heavily relied upon the presumption in
\nSection 110 of the Evidence Act to support the judgment and
\norder under challenge. He submits that in view of the long
\nuninterrupted possession of the pattedars title to the land in
\ntheir favour has to be presumed and it would be for the
\nappellant-State to prove that they are not the owners of
\nthe land. Ms. Amreswari has contended that, on the facts,
\nthe presumption is not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
Section 110 of the Evidence Act reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
  “110. Burden of proof as to ownership.–When
\nthe question is whether any person is owner of
\nanything of which he is shown to be in
\npossession, the burden of proving that he is
\nnot the owner is on the person who affirms that
\nhe is not the owner.”\n<\/p>\n
19. It embodies the principle that possession of a property
\nfurnishes prima facie proof of ownership of the possessor and
\ncasts burden of proof on the party who denies his ownership.
\nThe presumption, which is rebuttable,is attracted when the
\npossession is prima facie lawful and when the contesting party
\nhas no title.\n<\/p>\n
20. This Court in  Nair Service Society Limited v.  K.C.
\nAlexander and Ors.<\/a>  observed,<\/p>\n
   “the possession may prima facie raise a
\npresumption of tile no one can deny but this
\npresumption can hardly arise when the fats are
\nknown. When the facts disclose no title in
\neither party, possession alone decides.”\n<\/p>\n
21. The pattedars proved their possession of the lands in
\nquestion from 1312 Fasli (1902 A.D.) as pattedars. There is
\nlong and peaceful enjoyment of the lands in question but no
\nproof of conferment of patta on the late Raja and the facts
\nrelating to acquisition of title are not known. The
\nappellant-State could not prove its title to the lands. On
\nthese facts, the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence
\nAct applies and the appellants have to prove that the
\npattedars are not the owners. The appellants placed no
\nevidence on record to rebut the presumption. Consequently,
\nthe pattedars title to the land in question has to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
22. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court
\nas also of the High court. We have perused the notification
\nissued under Section 29 of the Forest Act. It shows that as
\nmany as fourteen villages are enumerated therein. Villages
\nAsadpur and Malachintapalli do not figure in the notification.
\nEven otherwise also, the notification does not show anything
\nmore than the fact that the Government has formed a protected
\nforest area. That by itself does not extinguish the rights of
\nthe private owners of the land nor does it show that the lands
\nin question vest in the State. A plain reading of the
\nstatutory order passed by the Commissioner of Survey,
\nSettlement and Land Record under Section 166-B of the Land
\nRevenue Act on December 5, 1981 places the matter beyond doubt
\nthat the suit lands were patta lands of the Pattedars. For
\nall these reasons, in our view, the High Court has committed
\nno error in confirming the said order of the Commissioner of
\nSurvey, Settlement and Land Record and the judgment and
\ndecree of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
23. Inasmuch as no cross appeal was filed by the said pattedars-respondents in regard to the denial of relief of the
\ncompensation, the interim order passed by this Court on
\nDecember 1, 1994 directing payment of one-half of the
\ncompensation shall stand vacated.\n<\/p>\n
24. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chief Conservator Of Forests, … vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 1805, 2003 (4) ALD 27 SC, 2003 (2) JCR 175 SC, JT 2003 (5) SC 210, (2003) 2 MLJ 57 SC, 2003 (2) SCALE 429, (2003) 3 SCC 472, 2003 2 SCR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChief Conservator Of Forests, ... vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chief Conservator Of Forests, ... vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-14T00:39:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chief Conservator Of Forests, … vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T00:39:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4858,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Chief Conservator Of Forests, ... vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-14T00:39:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chief Conservator Of Forests, … vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chief Conservator Of Forests, ... vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chief Conservator Of Forests, ... vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-14T00:39:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chief Conservator Of Forests, … vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T00:39:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003"},"wordCount":4858,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003","name":"Chief Conservator Of Forests, ... vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-14T00:39:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-vs-the-collector-and-ors-on-18-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chief Conservator Of Forests, … vs The Collector And Ors. on 18 February, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}