THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. versus MOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 18-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. SUNDRESH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 81 : 2024 INSC 310
The State of Telangana & Ors. 
v. 
Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
(Civil Appeal No. 5001 of 2024)
18 April 2024
[M. M. Sundresh* and S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court whether justified in passing the impugned order in 
review petition in favour of the plaintiff-respondent despite him not 
proving his title over the suit property (forest land), setting aside 
the concurrent judgments rendered by courts below which inter 
alia found that the suit land was a part of the reserved forest and 
the plaintiff had failed to show his title to the suit property.
Headnotes
Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 – s.15 – Andhra Pradesh 
(Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. – s.87 – Code of 
Civil Procedure 1908 – s.114; Or. XLVII, r.1 – Proceedings of 
the revenue department dtd. 17.11.1960 whereunder a revision 
of survey and settlement took place – Respondent No.1 
herein-Plaintiff filed application u/s.87, A.P. Land Revenue 
Act, 1317 F. seeking rectification of survey error stating 
that he owned the suit land, allowed – Land being forest 
land was declared as reserved forest by way of notification 
published u/s.15 of the A.P. Forest Act on 11.11.1971 – Trial 
court while granting title to the plaintiff declined the relief 
of injunction – High Court in appeal dismissed the suit – 
Review filed by the plaintiff – Contrary stands as regards 
the suit land being forest land were taken by State whereby 
Defendant No.1-District Collector (representing the Revenue 
Department), who had filed a common written statement along 
with the Defendant No.2-Forest Officer taking a stand that 
the suit property was a forest land which became part of a 
reserved forest area, constituted a committee and it was held 
that the suit property was to be excluded in favour of the 
plaintiff – Said decision was taken by the District Collector 
after the judgment of the First Appellate Court – High Court 
passed the impugned order in review petition in favour of 
82
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the plaintiff despite him not proving his title over the suit 
property – Sustainability:
Held: Officials of the State expected to protect and preserve the 
forests in discharge of their public duties clearly abdicated their 
role – High Court placed reliance upon evidence produced after 
the decree, at the instance of a party which succeeded along with 
the contesting defendant, particularly in the light of the finding 
that the land was forest land which had become part of reserved 
forest – Evidence relied upon was inadmissible on the face of it 
and, therefore, void from its inception, rendered by an authority 
which had absolutely no jurisdiction at all – There was a distinct 
lack of jurisdiction – Land belonged to the Forest Department 
and therefore, Defendant No.1 District Collector (representing the 
Revenue Department) had absolutely no role in dealing with it in 
any manner – A subsequent event per se cannot form the basis 
of a review – Sub-clause (c) of Or.XLVII r.1 specifies that the 
important matter or evidence produced must have been available 
at the time when the decree was passed – This is a matter of rule 
– Further, proceeding under the A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F 
had no relevancy or connection with a proceeding under the A.P. 
Forest Act concluded on 11.11.1971 – Thereafter, without any 
jurisdiction, an order was passed u/s.87, A.P. Land Revenue Act, 
1317 F – High Court had earlier 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 – 
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 u/Or.XLI, r.22, CPC 
for partly reversing the trial court decree – Even otherwise, there 
were concurrent findings in so far as dismissal of the suit for 
injunction was concerned – High Court showed utmost interest 
and benevolence in allowing the review by setting aside the well 
merited judgment in the appeal – Impugned judgment set aside, 
judgment rendered in appeal restored. [Paras 51, 54-56, 59]
Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 – ss.15, 16 – Andhra 
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. – s.87 
– Notification was published u/s.15 declaring the la

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