2024 (4) TMI 1155 - SC - Indian Laws

Scope/Power of review - Jurisdiction of the High Court in review - Mistake or error apparent on the face of record - Sub-clause (c) of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC 1908 - HELD THAT - There is a distinct lack of jurisdiction on two counts one is with respect to an attempt made to circumvent the decree and, the second is in acting without jurisdiction. The land belongs to the Forest Department and therefore, Defendant No. 1 had absolutely no role in dealing with it in any manner. Proceeding under the A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. has got no relevancy or connection with a concluded proceeding under the A. P. Forest Act. The proceeding under the A. P. Forest Act was concluded on 11.11.1971. Thereafter, without any jurisdiction, an order was passed under Section 87 of the A.P. Land Revenue Act. The High Court on the earlier occasion had given a clear finding that even at the time of declaration under the A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F, these lands were not shown as private lands by the defendant, among other factual findings. It is indeed very strange that the High Court which is expected to act within the statutory limitation went beyond and graciously gifted the forest land to a private person who could not prove his title. While disposing of the first appeal, the High Court exercised its power under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC 1908 for partly reversing the trial court decree. Even otherwise, there were concurrent findings in so far as dismissal of the suit for injunction is concerned - the High Court showed utmost interest and benevolence in allowing the review by setting aside the well merited judgment in the appeal by replacing its views in all material aspects. The suit filed is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not challenged the proceedings under Section 15 of A. P. Forest Act. These have become final and conclusive in view of the express declaration provided under the statute in Section 16 of A. P. Forest Act. Rather, the plaintiff filed an application for denotification before the Government which was rejected. Neither the State Government, which rejected the said application, nor the Forest Settlement Officer has been made as party defendants in the suit, with the State arrayed as respondent represented by the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, at a later stage in the appeal - there is no specific challenge to the concluded proceedings under the A. P. Forest Act. The Plaintiff has merely asked for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with possession. The impugned judgment stands set aside by restoring the judgement - it is considered appropriate to impose cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- each on appellants and respondents to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) within a period of two months from the date of this judgment - the appeal stands allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in review.
2. Validity of the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967.
3. The role and jurisdiction of the Revenue Department versus the Forest Department.
4. The applicability and interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967.
5. The concept of environmental justice and the role of courts in environmental protection.
6. The constitutional mandate to protect forests and the environment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Review:

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a re-hearing and virtually acting as an appellate court. The review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or rehearing of the case. The High Court inappropriately relied on evidence produced after the decree, which was inadmissible and void from its inception. The review was granted based on a report submitted by a committee formed by the District Collector, which lacked jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the Proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967:

The land in question was declared as reserved forest under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967, which was not challenged by the plaintiff. The proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act were concluded, and the land vested in the State as a reserved forest. The High Court's interference in the review was unwarranted as the proceedings had attained finality. The plaintiff's subsequent application for denotification was rightly dismissed.

3. Role and Jurisdiction of the Revenue Department versus the Forest Department:

The Revenue Department, represented by the District Collector, had no jurisdiction over the forest land declared as reserved forest. The Forest Department, particularly the Forest Settlement Officer, had the authority to deal with the land. The High Court erroneously relied on the Revenue Department's actions, which were taken without jurisdiction.

4. Applicability and Interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967:

The A.P. Forest Act, 1967, aims to conserve and protect forest land. Once land is declared as reserved forest under Section 15, it attains a special status, and any rights not claimed within the specified period are extinguished under Section 16. The High Court failed to consider the statutory limitations and the finality of the proceedings under the A.P. Forest Act.

5. Concept of Environmental Justice and the Role of Courts in Environmental Protection:

Courts have a constitutional duty to protect and preserve the environment. The principle of parens patriae and the precautionary principle require courts to ensure that any action does not degrade the environment. The High Court's decision in review jurisdiction undermined these principles by favoring a private individual over the collective interest of environmental protection.

6. Constitutional Mandate to Protect Forests and the Environment:

Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution mandate the State and citizens to protect and improve the environment, including forests. These provisions, read with Articles 14, 19, and 21, emphasize the importance of environmental protection. The High Court's decision in review jurisdiction failed to uphold this constitutional mandate.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restoring the judgment rendered in A.S. No. 145 of 1994. The Court imposed costs on the appellants and respondents to be paid to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). The State was granted the liberty to inquire into the lapses committed by the officers and recover costs from those responsible for filing incorrect affidavits. The Contempt Case No. 624 of 2021 was directed to be closed, and all other pending applications were dismissed.