Case Details
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: S.S.M. Quadri & Ashok Bhan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: 18 February 2003
Citation: AIR 2003 SC 1805
Appeals: Civil Appeal Nos. 8580 of 1994 and 9097 of 1995
Facts of the Case
The dispute revolved around 2,423.37 acres of land in the Jatprole Jagir, located in Kollapur Taluk of Mahboobnagar District in the erstwhile Hyderabad State. After the abolition of Jagirs through the Andhra Pradesh (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli, the administration of Jagirs vested in the State. The last Jagirdar, Raja S.V. Jagannadha Rao, was succeeded by Respondents 3 and 4, collectively referred to as the “pattedars.”
The pattedars contended that while most forest lands (1,20,824 acres) were taken over by the Forest Department, the disputed lands in Survey Nos. 11 (Asadpur village) and 168 (Malachintapalli village) remained with the Raja as patta (privately owned) lands. This was later confirmed in various revenue records and surveys.
The pattedars filed an application under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act for rectification of settlement records, which showed the lands incorrectly as "Mahasura" (protected). After inspection and joint enquiry, the Collector issued an order confirming that these were patta lands. A supplementary setwar (record of rights) was issued in 1966 accordingly.
Later, in 1972, the Chief Conservator of Forests challenged this position and claimed the lands were forest lands. This led to a government-directed enquiry under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act, conducted by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement, and Land Records. In 1981, the Commissioner upheld the Collector’s order and confirmed the lands were indeed patta lands.
Despite this, the Chief Conservator of Forests filed a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1982 challenging the Commissioner’s decision. Simultaneously, the pattedars filed a suit for declaration of title and for compensation for lands submerged under the Srisailam Project, as they were excluded from compensation due to the State’s claim that the lands belonged to the Government.
Procedural History
The writ petition filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests was heard along with the appeal arising from the trial court’s decree in the pattedars’ civil suit.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the trial court’s judgment, which had granted the declaration of title in favour of the pattedars.
Both decisions were challenged before the Supreme Court through Civil Appeals Nos. 8580 of 1994 and 9097 of 1995.
Issues
Whether the writ petition filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests was maintainable in law.
Whether the disputed lands were patta lands belonging to the pattedars or forest lands owned by the State.
Whether the State was right in denying compensation by treating the lands as Government property.
Arguments by the Appellant – Chief Conservator of Forests (on behalf of the Forest Department)
Claim of Ownership as Forest Land:
The Forest Department contended that the lands in question (Survey No. 11 of Asadpur and Survey No. 168 of Malachintapalli) were forest lands and had been treated as such since the abolition of the Jagir in 1949.
They argued that the inclusion of the area in the notification under Section 29 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Forest Act indicated its status as forest land.
Challenging the Order of the Commissioner:
The Chief Conservator of Forests challenged the Commissioner of Survey, Settlement and Land Records’ decision (dated 5 December 1981), which had upheld the Collector’s earlier rectification order that declared the lands as patta lands.
The Forest Department maintained that this decision was erroneous and should be quashed by the High Court through a writ petition.
Maintainability Justified:
The appellant’s counsel, Ms. K. Amreswari, argued that although the writ petition and appeal were filed in the name of the Chief Conservator of Forests and not in the name of the State of Andhra Pradesh, government permission had been obtained prior to filing.
She claimed this was a mere procedural irregularity, not fatal to the maintainability of the petition or appeal.
She submitted that the officer’s post should be treated as a proxy for the State, and therefore, the case should be seen as being effectively filed by the State.
Burden of Proof Not Discharged by Pattedars:
It was argued that the pattedars had not conclusively proven title to the lands and that mere possession or entries in revenue records were insufficient in law to establish ownership.
Arguments by the Respondents – Pattedars (Legal heirs of the former Jagirdar)
Longstanding Possession and Ownership:
The pattedars claimed that they and their predecessors had been in peaceful, continuous possession of the lands since 1902 A.D., paying land revenue regularly.
They contended that the lands were private patta lands, part of the Raja’s personal estate, and never formed part of forest land taken over by the State after abolition of Jagirs.
Legal Rectification of Revenue Records:
They highlighted that in 1966, the Collector had rectified the revenue records under Section 87 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act after a proper enquiry, declaring the lands as patta and not “Mahasura” (protected).
The Commissioner of Survey and Settlement had further confirmed this finding in 1981 under Section 166-B, and no appeal was filed by the State against that order.
Improper Party – Writ Not Maintainable:
Senior counsels Mr. P. P. Rao and Mr. Harish Salve, appearing for the pattedars, raised a strong preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition.
They argued that under Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of CPC, only the State could sue or be sued. The Chief Conservator of Forests, being merely a departmental officer and not a juristic person, could not file writ petitions or appeals in his own name.
Presumption of Ownership – Section 110 of the Evidence Act:
It was strongly urged that under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, long-standing possession gives rise to a presumption of ownership.
Since the Forest Department failed to rebut this presumption or produce contrary evidence, the title of the pattedars must be presumed and upheld.
Evidence Supporting Title:
The respondents relied on multiple documents such as revenue receipts (1951–1974), permissions for forest produce cutting (1954–1958), supplementary setwar, maps, old records from 1312–1328 Fasli, and Pahani Patrikas.
A former Tehsildar of the Jagir also testified confirming the private ownership and control of the Raja over the lands before 1949.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals and upheld the decision of the High Court.
On Maintainability:
The Court held that the writ petition filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests was not maintainable. Under Article 300 of the Constitution and Section 79 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), suits or proceedings by or against the State must be in the name of the “State.” The Chief Conservator of Forests is not a juristic person and thus cannot represent the State in legal proceedings. As such, the writ petition and appeal, not filed in the name of the State of Andhra Pradesh, suffered from a fatal defect. The Court criticized the practice of inter-departmental litigation and recommended the formation of high-level governmental committees to resolve such disputes internally.
On Merits:
The Court confirmed that the lands were in possession of the pattedars since 1902 and there was sufficient evidence, including old revenue records, land revenue payment receipts, and official correspondence, proving their ownership. The principle under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked: possession is prima facie proof of ownership unless rebutted. The State failed to provide any evidence rebutting this presumption or to show that the lands were ever forest lands or were acquired under the Forest Act.
The notification under Section 29 of the Forest Act did not include the disputed villages (Asadpur and Malachintapalli), and the mere designation of a region as a protected forest area does not extinguish private ownership rights.
Legal Principles Affirmed
Non-Maintainability of Inter-departmental Suits: A department of the State cannot sue another department in its own name. Only the State can sue or be sued.
S. 110 Evidence Act: Long and lawful possession is presumptive proof of ownership.
State Responsibility in Litigation: Proper parties must be impleaded. Misdescription may be corrected, but non-joinder of a necessary party (like the State) is fatal.
Government Accountability: The Court stressed the need for intra-government dispute resolution mechanisms to avoid unnecessary litigation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals with costs. It held that the writ petition filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests was not maintainable and that the pattedars had proven lawful and long-standing possession of the land, entitling them to the declaratory relief. However, since the pattedars had not filed a cross-appeal, the issue of compensation was not reopened. The Court’s ruling serves as an important precedent on inter-departmental litigation, procedural propriety, and ownership by possession.