STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus SHIV DAYAL & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 243 · Decided: 14-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
243
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
v
SHIV DAYAL & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.7363 of 2000)
AUGUST 14, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.100 – Substantial questions
of law – Suit by respondent no.1 against the appellant-State and its
authorities seeking grant of permanent injunction against the State
and its authorities from interfering in carrying out the mining
operations on the suit land by respondent no.1 – Claim was inter
alia based on ground that the suit land was not part of any protected
forest area as claimed by the State authorities but was part of the
Revenue area and, therefore, respondent no.1 had a right to carry
out mining operation on the suit land without any interference of
the State and its authorities – Trial court decreed the suit and granted
an injunction against the State and its authorities in relation to the
suit land – First appellate court affirmed the order of trial court –
High Court dismissed the appeals holding that since the two courts
decreed the suit, no substantial question of law arose in the appeals
– Aggrieved, State filed instant appeals – Held: High Court was
swayed away with the consideration that since two courts have
decreed the suit, resulting in passing of the decree against the State,
there was no substantial question of law in the appeals – When any
concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant
is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded
de hors the pleadings  or it was based on no evidence or it was
based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was
recorded against any provision of law and the decision is one which
no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached – If any
one or more ground, is made out in an appropriate case on the
basis of the pleading and evidence, such ground constitute
substantial question of law within the meaning of s.100 of the Code
– In the instant case, the questions arose as to whether the suit land
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 243
243
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
was a Forest land or a Revenue land; whether a mining lease of the
suit land could be granted by the State for carrying out the mining
operation in accordance with the MMRD Act and, if so, whether it
satisfied all the statutory provisions of the MMRD Act etc. – The
suit could not have been tried properly without deciding these
questions in the light of the pleadings, evidence and the applicable
laws – High Court, therefore, ought to have admitted the second
appeal by framing appropriate substantial questions of law  and
answered them on their respective merits – Matter remitted to High
Court for consideration afresh.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court,
the Court
HELD : 1. It is true that “concurrent finding of fact” is
usually binding on the High Court while hearing the second appeal
under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However,
this rule of law is subject to certain well known exceptions.  In
order to record any finding on the facts, the Trial Court is required
to appreciate the entire evidence (oral and documentary) in the
light of the pleadings of the parties.  Similarly,  the Appellate
Court also has the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence de novo
while hearing the first appeal and either affirm the finding of the
Trial Court or reverse it. If the Appellate Court affirms the finding,
it is called “concurrent finding of fact” whereas if the finding is
reversed, it is called “reversing finding”. These expressions are
well known in the legal parlance. [Paras 17-20] [248-B-D]
Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. v. Dashrath
Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.AIR 1943 Nagpur 117
– approved.
2.  In the facts of the case, the following questions arose
for consideration in the suit/appeal for proper adjudication of the
rights of the parties to the suit and are in the nature of substantial
questions within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code.  First,
whether the suit land was a part of a protected Forest area, i.e.,
Forest land and, if so, whether the parties satisfied all the statutory
provisions of the Forest Laws enacted by the Center and the
State?  Second, whether the suit land was a part of a Revenue
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
245
land and, if so, whether the parties to the suit satisfied all the
statutory provisions of the State Revenue Laws.   Third, whether
a mining lease of the suit land could be gra

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