2003 (2) TMI 436 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Pattedars' land title based on long possession, dismisses appeals.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment. The writ petition and appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forest were deemed ... Whether the Chief Conservator of Forest as the petitioner/appellant in the writ petition/appeal is a mere misdescription for the State of Andhra Pradesh? Whether it is a case of non-joinder of the State of Andhra Pradesh - a necessary party? Held that:- 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. The fact is that the State of Andhra Pradesh was not the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable in law. The High Court, had it deemed fit so to do, would have added the State of Andhra 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. 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, in our view, the High Court has committed no error in confirming the said order of the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Record and the judgment and decree of the trial court. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of writ petition and appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forest.2. Declaration of title and compensation for lands in dispute.3. Application of Section 110 of the Evidence Act regarding presumption of ownership.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Writ Petition and Appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forest:The Supreme Court examined whether the Chief Conservator of Forest could file a writ petition and appeal without naming the State of Andhra Pradesh as the petitioner/appellant. The Court referred to Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which mandate that the Government of a State must sue or be sued in the name of the State. The Court emphasized that a legal entity, either a natural or artificial person, must sue or be sued in its own name. The Chief Conservator of Forest, not being a juristic person, could not represent the State in legal proceedings. The Court concluded that the writ petition and subsequent appeal were not maintainable because they were filed in the name of the Chief Conservator of Forest instead of the State of Andhra Pradesh.2. Declaration of Title and Compensation for Lands in Dispute:The respondents (Pattedars) claimed that the lands in Survey No. 11 of Asadpur village and Survey No. 168 of Malachintapalli village were their ancestral patta lands and sought a declaration of title and compensation for the lands submerged due to the Srisailam Project. The trial court decreed the suit for declaration of title and rendition of accounts but denied compensation. The High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including supplementary setwar, land revenue receipts, and permissions for cutting forest wood, which demonstrated the Pattedars' possession and ownership of the lands. The Court found no evidence from the State to prove that the lands were taken over during the abolition of Jagirs or that they formed part of the forest area.3. Application of Section 110 of the Evidence Act:The Pattedars relied on Section 110 of the Evidence Act, which presumes ownership based on possession. The Supreme Court noted that the Pattedars had long and uninterrupted possession of the lands since 1312 Fasli (1902 A.D.) and had been paying land revenue. The State failed to provide evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court held that the presumption under Section 110 applied, and the Pattedars were presumed to be the owners of the lands. The Court also reviewed the notification under Section 29 of the Forest Act, which did not include the disputed villages and did not extinguish the private ownership rights.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment. The writ petition and appeal by the Chief Conservator of Forest were deemed not maintainable. The Pattedars' title to the lands was upheld based on long possession and lack of contrary evidence from the State. The Court vacated the interim order for compensation payment, as no cross-appeal was filed by the Pattedars regarding the denial of compensation. The appeals were dismissed with costs.