Premnarayan vs The State of M.P.

J.K. Maheshwari J.

This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th September, 2004 passed by III ADJ (Fast Track) Guna in Civil Appeal No. 24A of 2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 1.1.2003 passed by II Civil Judge Class II Guna in Civil Suit No. 5A of 2001 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title on the basis of lease granted in his favour by the revenue authorities and to set-aside the order of Additional Collector cancelling the said lease and injunction has been dismissed.

The plaintiff''s case in brief is that he is owner of the land bearing Survey No. 82/2 area 2 Hectares which was allotted to him s per patta granted by Bhudan Yagna Board being landless person. He is cultivating the said land since the date of grant of patta and planted 50 trees of Guava, 20 trees of Lemon, two trees of Berry and 24 other trees which have been standing thereon. The Additional Collector Guna in Case No. 155/1998-99 has cancelled the said patta after 25 years without affording opportunity of hearing relying upon a notification issued in the year 1967 u/s 4 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. However, the declaration of title on the basis of said patta and the order of cancellation of said patta may be set-side protecting the possession of the plaintiff on the suit land.

The defendant by filing written statement has contested the claim on very many grounds inter alia contending that the land in question is a reserved forest to which, patta cannot be granted by the revenue authorities. However, the order of cancellation of said patta has rightly been passed by them and the injunction being illegal occupier of the forest land cannot be granted.

After framing the issues and adducing the evidence by both the parties, the courts below have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff accepting the plea of defendant relaying upon the notification of the forest department holding that the land belongs to the forest department cannot be allotted on patta by the revenue authorities, however, the order of cancellation of said patta has rightly been passed. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by two courts, this appeal has been preferred.

Learned Senior counsel Shri Gupta has strenuously urged that the plaintiff was granted patta of the suit land which was cancelled by the Additional Collector without affording opportunity of hearing as contemplated u/s 50(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. It is further his contention that the cancellation of patta relying upon the notification issued u/s 4 is also illegal because, the said notification does not comply with the requirement as specified in the Forest Act. Therefore also, the judgment and decree passed by two courts below requires consideration. However, this appeal may be admitted formulating substantial questions of law.

On the other hand, Shri Rathi learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer and argued in support of the finding recorded by two courts and submits that the concurrent finding of facts do not warrant nay interference in this appeal. Hence, the appeal may be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it is apparent that as per the notification issued by the forest department, the land in question belongs to the reserved forest. It is not in dispute that the patta of the said land was granted to the plaintiff but on coming to know about nature of the land being reserved forest land, the said patta was cancelled.

It is trite law that the revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction to grant patta on the land notified as reserved forest. In such circumstances, the order of cancellation of patta passed by the Additional Collector is in accordance with law. However, confirming the findings recorded by two courts below, the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed.

So far as the arguments of illegally issuance of notification u/s 4is concerned, it is suffice that the said notification is not under challenge before this Court in this case. However, the said argument is not tenable and do not require to be adjudicated in this case.

In view of the foregoing observations, confirming the findings of two courts below, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed at the admission stage without any order as to the costs.