LexCHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS GOVT. OF A.P. versus THE COLLECTORS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS GOVT. OF A.P.
v.
THE COLLECTORS AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 18, 2003
B
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Sections 79 and 80, Order XXVJJ Rule
1 and Order 1 Rules 9 and 10-Dispute between two Government Departments
C with regard to title of land-Chief Conservator of forest filing writ petition,
not arraying State as party-Dismissal of writ petition-Appeal-
Maintainability of-Held, in absence of State in array of parties, cause will
be defeated for non-joinder of necessary party to /is-Chief Conservator of
Forest as petitioner/appellant can neither be treated as State nor it can be a
case of mis-description of State-Hence writ petition and appeal arising
D therefrom not maintainable-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 131, 226
and 300.
E
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 13 I-Resolving controversy arising
between various departments of the Slate or the State and any of its
undertakings-Setting up of Committee-Suggested.
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 1I0-App/icabi/ity of-Held : as pattedars
in possession of land for a long period and State unable to prove that pattedars
not owner, presumption under section applicable-Thus pattedars' title to the
land upheld-Andhra Pradesh {Telengana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317
F Fasli-Andhra Pradesh Telengana Area Forest Act, 1355 Fasli.
A dispute arose between two Government Departments with regard
to title of land in question. Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land
Record was directed to make an enquiry and pass an order. Thereafter
an order was passed. Appellant-Chief Conservator of Forests filed a writ
G petition challenging the order. State was not arrayed as a party. While
the enquiry was pending respondents-pattedars filed suit for declaration
of title, recovery of compensation and for rendition of accounts. Trial court
decreed the suit as regards the relief of declaration of title and rendition
of accounts but declined the relief for award of compensation. Collector
filed an appeal. Both the writ petition and the appeal were heard together.
H
180
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS GOVT. OF A.P. v. COLLECTORS
181
High Court dismisse~ the same. Hence the present appeals.
Respondents-pattedars contended that no individual officer of the
Government under the scheme of the Constitution or the Code of Civil
Procedure can file a suit or initiate any proceeding in the name of the post
A
he is holding, which is not a juristic person; and that in view of the long
uninterrupted possession of the pattedars, title to the land in their favour B
has to be presumed and it would be for the State-appellants to prove that
'
.
they are not the owners of the land.
Appellants contended that before filing the appeal, the Chief
Conservator of Forests had obtained orders and, therefore, the writ C
petition and the appeal should be deemed to have been filed by the
Government, not naming the Government in the writ petition as the
petitioner or in the appeal as the appellant, is only a procedural matter
and, therefore, it is not fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition and
the appeal; and that the presumption under Section llO is not attracted.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court .
HELD: 1.1. A legal entity-a natural person or an artificial person-
can sue or be sued in his/its own name in a court of law or a Tribunal. It
is not merely a procedural formality but is essentially a matter ofsubstance
D
and considerable significance. That is why there are special provisions in E
the Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure as to how th\ Central
Government or the Government of a State may sue or be sued. So also
there are special provisions in regard to other juristic persons specifying
as to how they can sue or be sued. In giving description of a party it will
be useful to remember the distinction between misdescription or misnomer
of a party and· misjoinder. or non-joinder of a party suing or being sued. F
In the case of misdescription of a party, the court may at any stage of the
suit/proceedings permit correction of the cause title so that the party before
the Court is correctly described; however a misdescription of a party will
not be fatal to the maintainability of the suit/proceedings. Though Rule 9
of Order I of C.P.C. mandates that no suit shall be defeated by reason of G
the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, it is important to notice that the
provisExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.