TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asra No. 65/1 in village Rampur, measuring 2.75 acre and the land at Khasra No. 173/1 in village Rampur, measuring 4.90 acre. Total area in the suit land is 7.65 acres. The contention of plaintiffs was that the land was in the name of their forefathers i.e. initially in the name of Thakur Maksudhan Singh, even before the time the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code came into the force, and that the name of Thakur Maksudhan Singh was entered in the revenue records as Bhumi Swami over the said suit land. The name of Thakur Maksudhan Singh finds place in the Jama Bandi of the year 1954-55 and that the forefathers of the plaintiffs were in constant possession of the said suit land. After the demise of Thakur Maksudhan Singh, the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondents No. 5 to 7 i.e. defendants No. 3 to 5 in the civil suit, by virtue of succession, acquired the rights in the said land. The dispute arose when the Forest Department of the State Government, whose land said to be adjacent to the suit land, while encircling the forest land by barbed wire, forcibly entered into the suit land claiming it to be the forest land. It, therefore, became necessary for the plaintiffs/responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 himself could not lead evidence to show as to which date the suit property came under the forest land and from which date the defendants No. 1 2 are in actual possession over the suit property and, therefore, the suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Finally, after considering all the evidence that were brought on record, the issue as to whether the plaintiffs can be granted the relief as claimed for in the suit, was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was allowed and a decree was drawn up accordingly declaring the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5 to be the title holders of the suit land and the suit land not being an area under the forest plan and that it was also decided that it is defendants No. 1 2 who had illegally dispossessed the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5 from the suit property. 5. The said judgment and decree dated 30.12.2003 passed by the trial Court was put to challenge by the State Government by way of first appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 1-A/2004, before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court also after considering the rival contentions of the parties to the suit, vide its judgment dated 25. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ramaratna Ranganayakamma, reported in 1997 (5) SCC 460, whereby the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been dealt with. 9. Per contra, Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the respondents, denied the fact that the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction and contended as per Section 3 of the Forest Act, the provision presupposes that the ownership of the land of the State Government should be established first for the purpose of the Forest Act to come into play for the applicability of Chapter II of the said Act before the Settlement Officer. Further contention of Shri Agrawal was that in any case the jurisdiction of the title of a suit land can only be decided by the Civil Court and that the question of title cannot be decided by the authorities under the Forest Act. Shri Agrawal also made a submission that all the averments made by the State Government was only by way of pleadings and arguments, but there is no documentary proof in respect of the claim of the State Government regarding the fact that the suit land belongs to the State Government and does not belong to the respondents. He also makes a submission that the State Government has failed to show an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , given under Section 4(1) of the Forest Act, specifically holds that for the purpose of specifying the situation and limits of the land to be declared as forest land it is sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers and other readily intelligible boundaries. For convenience sake, the explanation of Section 4(1) of the Forest Act is reproduced below:-- Explanation.- For the purpose of clause (b), it shall be sufficient to describe the limits of the forest by roads, rivers, ridges or other well-known or readily intelligible boundaries. 12. From the plain reading of the explanation itself, it is evidently clear that the requirement of law is not that each and every Khasra No. has to be specified for the purpose of declaring a land to be reserved forest. If the notification has specific boundaries that is sufficient for the purpose of attracting the provisions of the Forest Act and the requirement of Section 4 of the Forest Act to be achieved. 13. From the above given facts and circumstances, it is evidently clear that the land belonging to respondents/plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 in fact falls within the area of the reserved forest land and, therefore, the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urts of general jurisdiction was also expressly approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swamy Atmananda v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam reported in AIR 2005 SC 2392. 17. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Ajay Sinha and another, reported in 2008 (7) SCC 454, (para 35), relying upon the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, has held that provisions excluding jurisdiction of civil courts should receive strict construction. 18. Thus, from the plain reading to the settled position of law, it is evidently clear that where under the provisions of law or in a statute, the legislature has created a hierarchy of authority and also the provisions of challenging these orders of the authorities by way of appeal for the determination of the issues is sufficient for enforcing that the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the same is barred as has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Desika Charyulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 807. That being so, the trial Court has erred in law in deciding the issue that it has the jurisdiction in entertaining C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
