STATE OF GOA versus NARAYAN V. GAONKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 526 · Decided: 04-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
STATE OF GOA
v.
NARAYAN V. GAONKAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1866 of 2020)
MARCH 04, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Suit – for declaration of ownership – The plaintiffs-
respondents filed a suit for a direction to delete the name of ‘Forest
department’ from the survey entry No. 11/1 of a Village and to
declare the plaintiffs as the exclusive owners of the said property –
The defendants-appellant, the State, had filed a written statement-
cum-counter claim refuting the claim of the plaintiffs and claimed
that entire suit property was in possession and belonged to the Forest
Department – In the counter-claim, it was pleaded that plaintiffs
were wrongly recorded as co-occupants – The Trial court dismissed
the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the counter-claim filed by the
defendants- State was also rejected – The plaintiffs having not filed
any appeal against the rejection of the claim, the judgment of the
Trial Court has become final, however, the defendants filed appeal
in the High Court, which was dismissed – On appeal, held: A
proceeding sheet of Court for record of rights (correction of records)
indicated that on 20.10.1975, one of the plaintiff made a statement
that he wished to withdraw his application dated 07.08.1975
regarding a claim that the survey no.11/1 belonged to plaintiffs, it
was addressed to Mamlatdar for record of rights and hence, the
dispute case was closed – Even after withdrawal of the claim of
plaintiff, the names of plaintiffs were added by correcting the Form
III in red ink as required by sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Goa,
Daman and Diu (Record of Rights and Register of cultivators) Rules,
1969 – When there was no decision in favour of the plaintiffs,
applicant on the objection filed by them, there was no question of
adding their names in Index of Lands against survey No.11/1 – The
recording of names of the plaintiffs in survey no. 11/1 along with
the name of the Forest Department was illegal and not per 1969
rules – The plaintiffs failed to justify the continuance of their names
against survey No. 11/1 – Further, in the suit, the plaintiffs did not
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 526
526
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
mention/disclose proceeding regarding the correction of records
undertaken in 1975 – From the additional evidence brought on the
record by the State, it is clear that in record published, it was only
the name of the Forest Department – Even though Gazette dated
11.01.1951 does not mention survey no. 11 but forest was declared
in the village and the survey no. 11 is forest land is proved by other
evidence – Thus, the defendant-State has clearly made out the case
for allowing counter-claim – Accordingly, the name of the plaintiffs-
respondents from survey no. 11/1 directed to be struck off.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The record of proceeding sheet dated 20.10.1975
indicates that after recording the statement of one of the Plaintiff
the case was closed. The said proceedings indicate that the
objection filed by Plaintiff was withdrawn and hence there was no
decision taken in Dispute Case No.3. Even after withdrawal of
the claim by the plaintiff, the names of plaintiffs were added by
correcting the Form III in red ink as required by sub-Rule(6) of
Rule 6. The entry of names of the above persons along with Forest
Department was stated to be as per D.C.3 as is clear from Form
III Annexure-2 brought on record by the appellant. A coloured
print of above Annexure-2 has been placed before this Court by
ASG which is taken on record, which indicates that in Form III
the addition of names of three persons was by red ink. When
plaintiff had withdrawn his claim for deletion of name of Forest
Department, this Court fails to comprehend that as to how despite
that withdrawal which is duly recorded in the proceedings their
names can be added along with Forest Department against survey
No.11/1. Thus, the recording of names of the plaintiffs in survey
No.11/1 along with the name of the Forest Department was illegal
and not as per Rule 6 of Rules, 1969. When there was no decision
in favour of the plaintiffs, applicant on the objection dated
07.08.1975, there was no question of adding their names in Index
of Lands against survey No.11/1. The addition of the names of
the plaintiffs against survey No.11/1 was completely without
jurisdiction and the said entry cannot be allowed to be continued.
[Para 18][539-D-H; 540-A]
2. That in the suit filed by the 

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