ELIZABETH JACOB versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 12 S.C.R. 637 · Decided: 21-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 12 S.C.R. 637 
- v 
ELIZABETH JACOB 
A 
v. 
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.8032 of 2001) 
AUGUST 21, 2008 
B 
·-
. -11 
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ] 
Kera/a Revenue Recovery Act, 1968: 
s. 58 - Delivery of possession of immovable property 
purchased by a bona fide purchaser in auction sale -
c 
Application for - Not decided - Writ petition - Revenue stating · 
to verify if property was a forest land or not- As per orders by 
Single Judge in writ petition possession of land delivered to 
.J. 
~·"""?uction purchaser - On appeal, Division Bench of High Court 
dismissing the writ petition with liberty to auction purchaser to D 
approach civil court to establish her title and seek possession 
> 
of property - HELD: EJivision Bench of High Court committed 
jurisdictional error in interfering with judgment of Single Judge 
- Being a bonafide auction purchaser in a revenue recovery 
sale, to whom title had been conveyed free from encumbrances E 
by issue of a sale certificate, there was no need for appellant 
to go to a civil court and establish that the land sold to her was 
not forest land, that sale by Revenue authorities was valid, 
and, therefore, she was entitled to possession - She was 
---\ 
entitled to seek remedy under section 58 of the Act for securing 
F 
-
possession - It was for the State government to take necessary 
action if the land was forest land - Nothing was produced to 
· show that the land sold to appellant was a forest land - Nor 
any steps initiated to annul the sale and return the sale 
consideration to the appellant - In the circumstances, Single 
G 
Judge was justified in directing delivery of possession - There 
was no justification for the Division Bench to set aside the 
order of Single Judge and direct the appellant to approach 
the civil court to prove the negative and obtain a declaration 
637 
H 
r" 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 12 S.C.R. 
. A of title and possession - Order of Division Bench set aside 
and that of Single Judge restored - State government would 
be at liberty to take action in accordance with law if it finds that 
the land is a forest land. [para 6-9 and 17] 
B 
Administrative Law: 
Public Trust doctrine - Delivery of possession of land 
purchased by bonafide purchaser in auction sale conduCted 
by Revenue, resisted by Forest Department on the ground 
that the property might be forest land - HELD: -There is nothing 
c on record to show that the property is a forest land - Forest 
Department was aware that Revenue Department was to sell 
the land by public auction and latter knew that former claimed 
the properly as forest land - Both the departments could have 
sorted out the issue whether the property was forest land or 
0 
non-forest government Poramboke ·(waste land) - Neither of 
them took any steps to have declared the property as forest 
'land or to annul the auction sale - _,Because of 
misunderstanding and non-cooperation between two 
departments, a bona fide purchaser in a public auction was 
made to run from piller to post -
lnter-deparlmenta( co-
E operation and co-ordination is vital for the smooth and 
successful functioning of the Government - Unless immediate 
and serious steps are taken forf mproving the co-ordination, 
co-operation and understanding among various departments, 
offenders will escape, violators will walk away, national 
F resources will be swindled, and public interest will suffer. {para 
6, 13-15] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8032 
of 2001 
G 
From the final. Judgment and Order dated 8.8.2000 of the 
. J 
r-. 
High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 270 of 2000 
--t 
P. Krishnamurthy, M.P. Vined and Ajay K. Jain for the 
Appellant. 
H 
P.V. Dinesh for the Responder.ts. 
I 
? 
) 
ELIZABETH JACO.B v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 
639 
' 
IDUKKI & ORS. [RVRAVEENDRAN, J.] 
I 
~ 
"" 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
A 
i' 
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. The Revenue Divisional Officer, 
... ·. 
. 
Devikulam (second respondent herein), the Authorised Officer 
and delegate of the Distrjct .Collector under the Kera la Revenue 
Recovery Act, 1968 (in -short 'the Act') attached the immovable 
B 
property (land bearing Survey No.1131 of Peermade measuring 
:>f 
9.39 acres) belonging to Ansari and others under section 36 of 
the Act, on 9.1.1992, to recover their abkari dues to the state 
government. The property was put up for sale by public auction 
under section 49 of the Act. The appellant was th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.