Case Note & Summary
The State of Goa appealed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the State's counterclaim in a suit filed by Narayan V. Gaonkar and others. The plaintiffs had sought a declaration of ownership and deletion of the Forest Department's name from the survey entry of Survey No.11/1 in Sulcorna village. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, holding they failed to prove ownership, but upheld their possession and dismissed the State's counterclaim seeking deletion of the plaintiffs' names. The plaintiffs did not appeal. The State appealed, arguing that the finding of non-ownership had become final and that the property was forest land as per a 1951 Gazette Notification. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial court's finding on ownership was final due to lack of appeal. The Court noted that the Gazette Notification and a mining lease granted by the State over the property supported the State's claim. Additionally, a complaint by one plaintiff before the Mamlatdar had been withdrawn, yet their names were erroneously added to the survey entry. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed deletion of the plaintiffs' names from the occupant column of Survey No.11/1.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Finality of Findings - Unappealed Judgment - Where the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of ownership and the plaintiffs did not appeal, the finding that they are not owners becomes final and binding - Held that the plaintiffs cannot claim any right or title over the suit property (Paras 11-12).
B) Forest Law - Forest Land - Gazette Notification - A Gazette Notification dated 11.01.1951 declaring the suit property as National Forest under the then Government of Goa is conclusive evidence of the forest character of the land - Held that the property is forest land belonging to the Forest Department (Paras 8, 13).
C) Land Revenue - Survey Entries - Correction of Records - Where a complaint filed by one of the plaintiffs before the Mamlatdar was withdrawn, there was no basis to add their names alongside the Forest Department in the survey entry - Held that the names of the plaintiffs were wrongly recorded and must be deleted (Paras 8, 14).
D) Evidence - Additional Documents - Mining Lease - A mining lease granted by the State over the suit property is indicative of the State's possession and ownership - Held that the grant of lease supports the State's claim of possession (Paras 4, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal of the State's counterclaim seeking deletion of private individuals' names from the occupant column of Survey No.11/1, which was claimed to be forest land belonging to the Forest Department.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the survey authorities to delete the names of the plaintiffs from the occupant column of Survey No.11/1 of village Sulcorna, Quepem Taluka, and to restore the name of the Forest Department as the sole occupant.
Law Points
- Finality of unappealed findings
- Burden of proof in counterclaim
- Effect of Gazette Notification on forest land
- Withdrawal of complaint before Mamlatdar
- Possession follows title in forest land
Case Details
Civil Appeal No. 1866 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 19683 of 2012)
Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG for the appellant; Shri Carlos A. Fereira, learned counsel for the respondents
Narayan V. Gaonkar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court judgment affirming dismissal of State's counterclaim in a suit for declaration of ownership and correction of survey entry.
Remedy Sought
State of Goa sought deletion of private individuals' names from the occupant column of Survey No.11/1 and declaration that the property belongs to the Forest Department.
Filing Reason
The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming ownership and seeking deletion of Forest Department's name from survey entry; the State filed a counterclaim seeking deletion of plaintiffs' names.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed plaintiffs' suit (no appeal by plaintiffs) and dismissed State's counterclaim; High Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Issues
Whether the finding of non-ownership of the plaintiffs became final due to lack of appeal.
Whether the suit property is forest land belonging to the Forest Department based on the 1951 Gazette Notification.
Whether the names of the plaintiffs were wrongly recorded in the survey entry and should be deleted.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): The trial court's finding that plaintiffs are not owners is final; the 1951 Gazette Notification and mining lease prove the property is forest land; the plaintiffs' complaint was withdrawn, so their names were wrongly added.
Respondents (Plaintiffs): Their ancestors were owners as per matriz document; the complaint was about adjoining land; withdrawal has no adverse effect; mining lease can be granted even if land is owned by tenure holder.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a finding of non-ownership in a suit becomes final due to lack of appeal, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the property. A Gazette Notification declaring land as forest is conclusive evidence of its character. Names added to survey entry after withdrawal of a complaint are wrongly recorded and must be deleted.
Judgment Excerpts
The suit filed by the plaintiffs ... having been dismissed by the trial court and no appeal having been filed by the plaintiffs against the said judgment the rejection of the claim of the plaintiff’s ownership of survey No.11/1 has become final.
The Gazette Notification dated 11.01.1951 published in the Government Gazette by the then Government of Goa the description of the National Forests in District Goa was published wherein in Village Sulcorna forest was declared and published.
When the complaint was withdrawn by the plaintiff, there was no occasion of their names to be added alongwith the Forest Department in the Survey No.11/1, hence their name was wrongly entered which deserves to be expunged.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 1995 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem. The trial court dismissed the suit and the State's counterclaim on 23.04.2001. The State filed First Appeal No. 115 of 2001 in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which was dismissed on 30.06.2011. The State then filed SLP (C) No. 19683 of 2012, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 1866 of 2020.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968:
