2013 (11) TMI 1798 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Title holder of the suit land.
2. Illegal dispossession by defendant No. 2.
3. Jurisdiction of the trial Court.
4. Entitlement of plaintiffs for relief.
5. Suit barred by limitation.
6. Jurisdiction of Civil Court post notification u/s 3 & 4 of the Forest Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Title Holder of the Suit Land
The trial Court affirmed that the suit property was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5. The first appellate Court confirmed this judgment.

Issue 2: Illegal Dispossession by Defendant No. 2
The trial Court held that defendant No. 2 had illegally and forcefully dispossessed the plaintiffs and defendants No. 3 to 5 from the suit property. This finding was upheld by the first appellate Court.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Trial Court
The trial Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, noting that the Indian Forest Act, 1927 does not expressly bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The first appellate Court agreed with this conclusion.

Issue 4: Entitlement of Plaintiffs for Relief
The trial Court granted the relief sought by the plaintiffs, declaring them and defendants No. 3 to 5 as the title holders of the suit land. The first appellate Court upheld this decision.

Issue 5: Suit Barred by Limitation
The trial Court decided that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the defendants failed to provide evidence of when the suit property came under forest land. This decision was also upheld by the first appellate Court.

Issue 6: Jurisdiction of Civil Court Post Notification u/s 3 & 4 of the Forest Act
The High Court examined whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction was barred after the issuance of notifications u/s 3 & 4 of the Forest Act. The Court noted that the State Government had issued a notification u/s 4 of the Forest Act declaring the area, including the suit land, as reserved forest. The Court referred to the explanation u/s 4(1) of the Forest Act, which allows for the description of forest limits by readily intelligible boundaries rather than specific Khasra numbers. The Court concluded that the land in question falls within the reserved forest area, thus making the provisions of the Forest Act applicable.

The High Court cited precedents emphasizing that the exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction must be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. It held that the trial Court erred in asserting jurisdiction over the suit, given the alternative remedy provided under the Forest Act. Consequently, the High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of the trial and first appellate Courts. The plaintiffs were advised to approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Forest Act.