Constitutional Courts Are Not Merely Arbiters But Stakeholders In Cases Relating To Rivers, Forests: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which decreed a suit in favour of private persons, declaring them to be owners of the land, which was notified by the then Mysore Maharaja in 1929 for the formation of a State Reserve Forest.A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the State government and...
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the trial court which decreed a suit in favour of private persons, declaring them to be owners of the land, which was notified by the then Mysore Maharaja in 1929 for the formation of a State Reserve Forest.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the State government and Karnataka State Road Corporation and set aside the order of the trial court dated 29-08-2011, passed in favour of Mallaiah and others.
It said, “Once a forest, always a forest' should operate as a Thumb Rule, in these days when forests are fast depleting with unprecedented acceleration because of dreadful population growth and allied factors.”
Mallaiah had claimed his father Mayaga was the owner/kabjedaar of lands in question; the jurisdictional revenue authorities unlawfully changed these entries in favour of the State Forest Department.
The primary contention of the plaintiff was that the Forest Notification of 1929 which constituted Chamundibetta State Reserve Forest, does not comprise the suit lands at all. Had it been otherwise, the question of issuing acquisition Notifications in respect of suit lands under the provisions of the 1894 Act would not have arisen.
It was argued that the lands stood in the name of Mayaga in the revenue records and these entries could not have been upset by the revenue authorities with no reason or rhyme.
The state contended that there was no material to show the relationship between the plaintiffs and their so-called ancestor Mayaga who is shown to be the owner of the land.
It was argued that the suit for declaration of title was not maintainable under the Code of Civil procedure as once a State Forest is constituted by the Government of Maharaja of Mysore in terms of said Notification, the grievances of the persons interested in the private lands ought to have been worked out under the provisions of Mysore Forest Act itself.
Findings:
The bench observed that rivers and forests have defined civilizations throughout the history of mankind. They were revered and worshipped in ancient India as organic entities. It stated that in cases relating to rivers and forests, the constitutional courts are not mere arbiters but the stakeholders too.
Court noted that revenue records concerning the suit lands were mutated in favour of the State Forest Department on the ground that throughout the said entry stood that way since 1950 and that all of a sudden, Mayaga's name could not have been entered in the place of the Forest Department, without any basis.
It rejected the contention that revenue records noted the name of Mayaga the court relied on the Mysore Government Notification dated 6.6.1929 issued u/s 17 of the 1900 Act, whereby Chamundibetta State Reserve Forest has been constituted and the Forest Map.
It said “The survey numbers in which the suit lands are situated are not in so many words found in the subject Notification or the Forest Map. However, when a State Reserve Forest is sought to be constituted by Notifications of the kind, the land comprised therein is de-marked by the boundary lines. If suit lands obviously fall within the said boundary lines, non-mentioning of the survey numbers pale into insignificance.”
It also noted that no challenge was raised by the plaintiffs to the 1929 Notification about the Constitution of Chamundibetta State Reserved Forest and no material was placed on record to indicate that any subsequent Notification was issued by the State Government denotifying the suit lands from being State Reserve Forest.
The court said “Learned Panel Counsel and the learned HCGP are more than justified in pointing out that the Revenue Records since 1950 had reflected the suit lands as being 'State Forest Acquired', for decades uninterruptedly. However, for the first time, name of Mayaga S/o Malla came to be entered only for the years 1970-71 to 1973-74. On what basis, these entries came to be abruptly made in the name of a private party that remains a secret within the mystery wrapped in enigma.”
Following this it said “There is a strong presumption in the given circumstances u/s 133 of the 1964 (Land Acquisition) Act as to these long standing entries being genuine. Conversely, the entries made in the Revenue Records sans any conveyance or the like does not enjoy presumptive value.”
The court agreed with the appellants as regards to the maintainability of the suit and said that if the land owner Mayaga had any grievance against the formation of Reserve Forest because of the inclusion of the subject lands, he could have had recourse for redressal as provided under the provisions of 1900 Act itself.
It added “It has been a settled position of law that once a special statute establishes separate machinery for working out the grievance, ordinarily, the jurisdiction of civil courts stands excluded.”
Thus it allowed the appeal, dismissed the suit filed by the defendants and directed authorities for the updation/correction of entries in all the official records concerning the subject lands and to show the same as being part of Chamundibetta State Reserve Forest, within three months.
Appearance: Advocate P D Surana, Advocate Spoorthi Hegde for A2 AND A5
Advocate Prakash T Hebbar for R2 TO R4 AND R6 TO R8.
Advocate Mahesh B for R5.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 345
Case Title: Karnataka State Road Corporation & Others AND Mallaiah & Others
Case No: R.F.A. NO.1653 OF 2011