TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndhra Pradesh as a party; however, it proceeded, in our view erroneously, as if the State of Andhra Pradesh was the petitioner which, as a matter of fact, was not the case and could not have been treated as such. As the writ petition itself was not maintainable, it follows as a corollary that the appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forests is also not maintainable. The permission granted to the concerned authority might be a permission to file an appeal which cannot reasonably be construed as authorisation to file the appeal in his own name, contrary to law. It could only be a permission to file the appeal in the name of the State of Andhra Pradesh in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the C.P.C. We may also record that in spite of the Pattedars taking objection to that effect at the earliest, no steps were taken to substitute or implead the State of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petition in the High Court or in the appeal in this Court. For Civil Appeal No. 9097 of 1995 notification issued under Section 29 of the Forest Act shows that as many as fourteen villages are enumerated therein. Villages Asadpur and Malachintapalli do not figure in the notification. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 355 Fasli [for short, 'the Forest Act'] was issued on December 4, 1950. The notification enumerated fourteen villages comprising of an extent of 93,030 acres of Kollapur taluk Mahboobnagar District, which was named as Kollapur range. It appears that a notification under Section 30 of the Forest Act was also issued but that notification is not on record. In the year 1953, re-survey of the erstwhile Jagir was conducted. The lands in question, namely, Survey No. 40 (old) was assigned Survey No. 11 and Survey No. 241 (old) was assigned Survey No. 168; however, the finalisation of the survey was done in 1962. The Pattedars filed an application under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli [for short, 'the Land Revenue Act'] to rectify the mistake noted in the settlement record pursuant to the said re-survey. The mistake was alleged to be that the name of the Khatedar was not shown against the said survey numbers which were shown as 'Mahasura' (protected). The District Collector, after conducting the necessary enquiry and on a joint inspection in which the Land Record Assistant and the Forest Range Officer participated and in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t require any further examination as the rectification of record was made under Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act. There is a reference to the report of the R.D.O. dated 31st October, 1975, which was made on inspection and after making local enquiries, stating that the lands were in possession of the Pattedars as private patta land. While so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh proposed to acquire the lands in question which were likely to be submerged upon completion of the Srisailam Project. Two notification were issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The first was issued on January 31, 1975 proposing to acquire 410 acres out of the land in Survey No. 11 in Asadpur village and the second was issued on November 4, 1976 proposing to acquire an extent of 45 acres and 20 guntas of land in Survey No. 168 in Malachintapalli village for Srisailam Project. However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders cancelling the said notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and withdrawing from the acquisition, on the ground that the said lands were Government lands, on February 16, 1978. The said order was assailed by the Pattedars in Writ Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2291 of 1986, before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The afore-mentioned Writ Petition (C) No. 3414 of 1983 and Appeal No. 2291 of 1986 were heard together and dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by a common judgment on April 21, 1989, which is the subject matter of challenge in the appeals before us. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the Pattedars-respondents in Civil Appeal No. 8530 of 1994 and Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the Pattedars-respondents in Civil Appeal No. 9097 of 1995, raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by the Chief Conservator of Forest as well as the appeal arising therefrom. Article 300 of the Constitution of India, it is contended, provides that the Government of a State may sue or be sued in the name of the State; Section 79 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 directs that the State shall be the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant in a suit by or against the Government and Section 80 thereof directs notice to the Secretary to that State or the Collector of the District before the institution of the suit; and Rule 1 of Order 27 lays do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of the Union of India or by the name of the State respectively, subject, of course, to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of Legislature of such State by virtue of powers conferred by the Constitution. 9. Section 79 of the C.P.C. deals with suits by or against the Government. It reads thus: 79. Suits by or against Government.-- In a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, shall be-- (a) in the case of a suit by or against the Central Government, the Union of India; and (b) in the case of a suit by or against a State Government, the State. A plain reading of Section 79 shows that in a suit by or against the Government, the authority to be named as plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, in the case of the Central Government, the Union of India and in the case of the State Government, the State, which is suing or is being sued. Order 27 of Rule 1, as mentioned above, deals with suits by or against the Government or by officers in their official capacity. Rule 1 of Order 27 C.P.C. says that in any suit by or against the Government, the plaint or the written statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of the State/Union of India, as the case may be, lest the suit will be bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. Even post in the hierarchy of the posts in the Government set-up, from the lowest to the highest, is not recognised as a juristic person nor can the State be treated as represented when a suit/proceeding is in the name of such offices/posts or the officers holding such posts, therefore, in the absence of the State in the array of parties, the cause will be defeated for non-joinder of a necessary party to the lis, in any court or Tribunal. We make it clear that this principle does not apply to a case where an official of the Government acts as a statutory authority and sues or pursues further proceeding in its name because in that event, it will not be a suit or proceeding for or on behalf of a State/Union of India but by the statutory authority as such. Under the scheme of the Constitution, Article 131 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in regard to a dispute between two States of the Union of India or between one or more States and the Union of India. It was not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution or the C.P.C. that two departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partments of the State or the State and any of its undertakings. It would be appropriate for the State Governments to set up a Committee consisting of the Chief Secretary of the State, the Secretaries of the concerned departments, the Secretary of Law and where financial commitments are involved, the Secretary of Finance. The decision taken by such a committee shall be binding on all the departments concerned and shall be the stand of the Government. Now, reverting to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the view that after the said statutory order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record, the matter should have rested there. We have, therefore, no hesitation incoming to the conclusion that it was not only inappropriate but also illegal for the Chief Conservator of Forest, though he might have done so in all good faith, to have questioned the order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition (C) No. 3414 of 1982. The Chief Conservator of Forests as the petitioner can neither be treated as the State of Andhra Pradesh nor can it be a case of misdescription of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaded that they were forest lands of the State. To establish their claim, the Pattedars produced two witnesses. The first witness was one of the Pattedars and the second was the Tehsildar of the Jagir Jatprole for the period November, 1937 to September, 1949. They also filed supplementary setwar, Exhibit A-1. During the period 1954 to 1958, permission was granted to the Pattedars by the Government for cutting forest wood; permission letters were filed as Exhibits A-2 to A-9. These documents show the exercise of right as owner over the suit lands. Exhibit A-10 was filed to prove that in the village map, the suit lands were shown as patta lands. In support of the plea for payment of the land revenue after the abolition of Jagir from 1951 to 1974, Exhibits A-11 to A-26 were filed. Those receipts related to Asadpur village. Exhibits A-27 to A-44 are receipts for payment of land revenue in respect of the land in Malachintapalli village. To prove that prior to the abolition of Jagirs, the suit lands were under the control of the last Jagirdar, Exhibits A-46 to A-50 were filed which relate to the period 1312 Fasli to 1328 Fasli and show the expenditure incurred by the last Jagirdar in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt-State could not prove its title to the lands. On these facts, the presumption under Section 110 of the Evidence Act applies and the appellants have to prove that the pattedars are not the owners. The appellants placed no evidence on record to rebut the presumption. Consequently, the pattedars title to the land in question has to be upheld. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court as also of the High court. We have perused the notification issued under Section 29 of the Forest Act. It shows that as many as fourteen villages are enumerated therein. Villages Asadpur and Malachintapalli do not figure in the notification. Even otherwise also, the notification does not show anything more than the fact that the Government has formed a protected forest area. That by itself does not extinguish the rights of the private owners of the land nor does it show that the lands in question vest in the State. A plain reading of the statutory order passed by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act on December 5, 1981 places the matter beyond doubt that the suit lands were patta lands of the Pattedars. For all these reasons, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
