# The State of Telangana & Ors v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 310
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-04-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5001 of 2024
- **Bench:** M. M. Sundresh, S. V. N. Bhatti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-telangana-ors-v-mohd-abdul-qasim-died-per-lrs-37709
- **Pages:** 62

## Headnote

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 ren

## Text

_Characters 0–39,989 of 129,275. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39989 for what follows._

* 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 land being
forest land, as reserved forest - Suit filed for declaration of
title and permanent injunction - Maintainability:
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
83
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
Held: Completion of the process as prescribed u/s.15 results
in changing the character of land, including a forest land into a
reserved forest - Thereafter, there shall be no question of raising
any dispute on its character - Suit filed was not maintainable as
the plaintiff had not challenged the proceedings u/s.15 which had
become final and conclusive in view of the express declaration
provided in s.16 - Rather, the plaintiff filed application for
denotification before the Government which was rejected - Neither
the State Government, which rejected the said application, nor
the Forest Settlement Officer were made as party defendants in
the suit, with the State arrayed as respondent represented by the
Principal Secretary, Forest Department, at a later stage in the
appeal - Though, the Forest Officer of the Forest Department
may be an interested party, the authority who otherwise could
answer was the Forest Settlement Officer - He was the one who
concluded the proceedings - In any case, the said exercise was
irrelevant as the Plaintiff could not prove his title nor does there
lie any relevance to the action taken under the A.P. Land Revenue
Act, 1317 F - Furthermore, there was no specific challenge to the
concluded proceedings under the A. P. Forest Act - Plaintiff merely
asked for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining
the Defendants from interfering with possession. [Paras 13, 57]
Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 - Object - Discussed.
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - s.114; Order XLVII Rule 1 -
"after the exercise of due diligence"; "on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" - Review
- Scope - Code of Civil Procedure, 1859 - ss.376, 378 - Code
of Civil Procedure, 1877 - s.623:
Held: The words "due diligence", though one of fact, places onus
heavily on the one who seeks a review - It has to be seen from
the point of view of a reasonable and prudent man - Though
an element of flexibility is given to any evidence or matter on its
discovery, it has to be one which was not available to the court
earlier - It could not have been produced despite due diligence,
meaning thereby that it should have been available and, therefore,
in existence at least at the time of passing the decree - Mistake
or error apparent on the face of record would debar the court
from acting as an appellate court in disguise, by indulging in
a re-hearing - A decision, however erroneous, can never be a
factor for review, but can only be corrected in appeal - Such a
84
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
mistake or error should be self-evident on the face of record - The
material produced, at this stage, should be of such pristine quality
which, if taken into consideration, would have the logical effect of
reversing the judgment - A subsequent event per se cannot form
the basis of a review - Sub-clause (c) of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the
CPC 1908, clearly 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 - On a very rare occasion,
an exception can be carved out - While exercising the said power,
the court has to first check the evidentiary value of such discovery,
including the circumstances under which it emanated, particularly
when it inherently lacks jurisdiction or the evidence cannot be
made admissible in law and therefore, is not relevant - In such a
circumstance, there is no question of proceeding further in deciding
the review application. [Paras 19-23]
Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19, 21, 48A and 51A - Forest
- Constitutional Perspective:
Held: Article 48A imposes a clear mandate upon the State
as a Directive Principle of State Policy, while Article 51A(g)
correspondingly casts a duty upon a citizen to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers
and wildlife and to have compassion for fellow living creatures
- These two provisions qua a forest ought to be understood in
light of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as they
represent the collective conscience of the Constitution - If the
continued existence and protection of forests is in the interest
of humanity, various species and nature, then there can be no
other interpretation than to read the constitutional ethos into these
provisions. [Para 25]
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Environment - Need
for forests - Change in approach from Anthropocentric to
Ecocentric - Natural rights theory - Economic Considerations
- "Green Accounting" - Discussed.
Judicial Deprecation - Costs - Collusive affidavits filed -
Despite a categorical finding of the suit property being a forest
land, contrary stands taken by instrumentality of the State, but
finally rectified by way of an affidavit before Supreme Court
- However, in view of such different stands, the impugned
order was passed in favour of the respondents despite him
not proving his title over the suit property (forest land):
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
85
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
Held: Officials of the State expected to protect and preserve the
forests in discharge of their public duties clearly abdicated their
role - Cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed - Appellant-State free to
enquire into the lapses committed by the officers in filing collusive
affidavits before the competent court, and recover the same from
the officers responsible for facilitating and filing incorrect affidavits.
[Paras 54, 59]
Environment - Protection and preservation - Approach to be
adopted by the courts - Constitution of India - Articles 48A,
51A, 21, 14 and 19:
Held: This Court has repeatedly reiterated the approach required
to be adopted by the courts where the onus is on the violator
to prove that there is no environmental degradation - There is
a constitutional duty enjoined upon every court to protect and
preserve the environment - Courts will have to apply the principle
of parens patriae in light of the constitutional mandate enshrined
in Articles 48A, 51A, 21, 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India -
Therefore, the burden of proof lies on a developer or industrialist
and also on the State in a given case to prove that there is no
such degradation. [Para 38]
Case Law Cited
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of
Delhi [1980] 2 SCR 650 : (1980) 2 SCC 167; Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others
(1979) 4 SCC 389; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [1997]
Supp. 4 SCR 470 : (1997) 8 SCC 715; Chhajju Ram v.
Neki (1922) SCC OnLine PC 11; State of W.B. v. Kamal
Sengupta [2008] 10 SCR 4 : (2008) 8 SCC 612; Shri
Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat [2020] 11 SCR 865 :
(2021) 13 SCC 1; Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics
& Hydropower Ltd. [2005] Supp. 2 SCR 517 : (2005)
6 SCC 651; Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B.
[1987] 2 SCR 223 : (1987) 2 SCC 295; M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 389 : (2000) 6 SCC
213; Pradeep Krishen v. Union of India [1996] Supp.
2 SCR 697 : (1996) 8 SCC 599; Municipal Corpn. of
Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha [2021] 10 SCR 1 :
(2022) 13 SCC 401; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v.
Union of India [2012] 3 SCR 460 : (2012) 3 SCC 277;
86
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87) v. Union of India
[2006] 3 SCR 1046 : (2006) 1 SCC 1; A.P. Pollution
Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu [1999] 1 SCR 235 :
(1999) 2 SCC 718; Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P.
[2006] 2 SCR 419 : (2006) 3 SCC 549; Narinder Singh
and Ors. v. Divesh Bhutani and Ors. [2022] 15 SCR
1066 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 899; Amarnath Shrine,
In re [2012] 13 SCR 1093 : (2013) 3 SCC 247; H.P.
Bus-Stand Management & Development Authority v.
Central Empowered Committee [2021] 1 SCR 344 :
(2021) 4 SCC 309 - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
Paper titled "New Transitions from Human Rights to the
Environment to the Rights of Nature" by Dr. Susana Borras
published in Transnational Environmental Law, Volume 5,
Issue 1, April 2016; Christopher D. Stone: Should Trees Have
Standing? - Toward Legal Rights For Natural Objects, Southern
California Law Review, 45 (1972) (pp. 464, 473, 474, 476);
Professor Wahlen in her paper titled "Opportunities for making
the invisible visible: Towards an improved understanding of the
economic contributions of NTFPs", published in the Journal of
Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 84, November 2017; report
of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India
titled "India's Forest and Tree Cover: Contribution as a Carbon
Sink" (August 2009); Report on Currency and Finance; Towards
a Greener Cleaner India", published by the Reserve Bank of
India, (2022-2023), (pp. 45, 47); "Top Soil and Civilization" by
Tom Dale and Vernon Gill Carter, published by the University of
Oklahoma Press, (1955) - referred to.
List of Acts
Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967; Andhra Pradesh (Telangana
Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F.; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Forest land; Reserved forest; Forest Officer; Forest Department;
Forests; Review petition; Subsequent event; Due diligence; Mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record; Costs; Collusive
affidavits.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
87
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5001 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2021 of the High Court
for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad in IA No. 3 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, L. Narasimha Reddy,
Sr. Advs., Sravan Kumar Karanam, Ms. Manisha Chava, Annirudh
Singh, Ms. Pranali Tayade, Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Mrs. Medha Singh,
P. Santhosh Kumar, Dharmesh Dk Jaiswal, Ms. Ira Mahajan, Manoj
C. Mishra, Advs. for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
M. M. Sundresh, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The statement made by the Tribal Chief Seattle, way back in the year
1854, in his letter to the offer of George Washington, the former First
President of the United States of America, to buy their land, is a pearl
of wisdom not understood by the ignorant, educated modern mind.
"Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every
shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the
dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are
holy in the memory and experience of my people.
xxx xxx xxx
This we know: the earth does not belong to man; man
belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood
that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life; he
is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he
does to himself."
3.
A well merited judgment, passed in A.S. No. 145 of 1994 by the High
Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the
State of Andhra Pradesh, decided on a conscious consideration of
the issues raised before it, confirming the one rendered by the Trial
Court, was reviewed like an Appellate Court, based upon the materials
that emanated after its filing, at the instance of a party defendant in
88
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
whose favour a decree was granted and that too by acting without
the requisite jurisdiction, is under challenge in this appeal.
4.
We are dealing with a case where an instrumentality of the State,
despite a categorical finding of the suit property being a forest land,
took different stands, but finally rectified by way of an affidavit before
this Court. This act of taking different stands resulted in facilitating the
impugned order being passed in favour of the respondents, setting
aside the concurrent judgments rendered by two courts below, on
appreciation of fact and law.
5.
Heard Learned Additional Solicitor General Ms. Aishwarya Bhati for
Appellants and Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul,
Mr. L Narsimha Reddy for Respondents, perused the entire record,
including the affidavits filed.
THE ANDHRA PRADESH FOREST ACT, 1967
6.
The Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as
"the A.P. Forest Act") has been enacted with a laudable objective of
conserving, protecting and extending the forest cover, with a sound
mechanism to deal with all the disputes arising thereunder while
declaring land as reserved forest.
"As this Act is only a Consolidating Act, it is necessary that
the objects and reasons of the Madras Act are incorporated
so that the objects and reasons for this Act can as well be
known. The Objects and Reasons of the Madras Act were
published in Fort St. George Gazette Extraordinary, dated
06th July 1882 at page 17 as follows:
Statement of Objects and Reasons: This Act is designed
to supply the want which had long been felt of legislative
enactment to enable Government to carry out effectually the
conservancy of forests of the Presidency, and to systematic
and regulate the action of the Forest Department.
The first necessity is to provide for the constitution
of the more important forests as State Reserves,
and either to clear them under arrangement for due
compensation of private rights which mitigate against
forest conservancy, or to ascertain and define such
rights so that future extension of them and fresh
encroachments shall be impossible. To this end, the
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
89
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
Act enables Government to empower officers to be
called Forest Settlement officers to enquire into and
to commit on record all private rights in areas to be
elected for constitution as reserved forests. From the
decisions of the officers appeal will lie, in the case
of claims involving proprietary rights, to the District
Courts, in the case of rights of way, and of rights to
pasture to forest produce, or to the use of water to
the Collector or other Revenue Officer of not less
than such standing. When the enquiry is completed
and all claims disposed of and settled, the forest will
be declared by the Government to be reserved, and
thereafter no fresh rights can accrue therein. The Bill
also contains such provisions as are necessary for the
protection of forests declared reserved..."
(emphasis supplied)
Section 2 of the A.P. Forest Act
"2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requiresxxx xxx xxx
(f)
'forest officer' means any person appointed by the
Government or by any officer empowered by the
government in this behalf,-
[(i) to be the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Special
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Additional Principal
Chief Conservator of Forests, Chief Conservator of Forests,
Conservator, Deputy Conservator, Assistant Conservator,
Divisional Forest Officer, Sub-Divisional Forest Officer,
Ranger, Deputy Ranger, Forester or Forest Section Officer,
Forest Guard or Forest Beat Officer, Assistant Beat Officer,
Thanadar, Checking Officer or Plantation Watcher or any
other person or authority as may be notified;]
(ii) to perform any function of a forest officer under this Act
or any rule or order made thereunder;
but does not include a Forest Settlement Officer appointed
under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4;"
90
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act
"4. Notification by Government:- (1) Whenever it is
proposed to constitute any land as a reserved forest,
the Government shall publish a notification in the Andhra
Pradesh Gazette and in the District Gazette concerned
in any;
(a)
specifying, as nearly as possible, the situation and
limits of such land;
(b)
declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land
as reserved forest;
(c)
appointing a Forest Settlement Officer to consider the
objections, if any, against the declaration under Clause
(b) and to enquire into and determine the existence,
nature and extent of any rights claimed by, or alleged
to exist in favour of, any person in or over any land
comprised within such limits, or to any forest produce
of such land, and to deal with the same as provided
in this Chapter.
Explanation:- (1) For the purpose of Clause (a), it shall
be sufficient to describe the limits of the land by any wellknown or readily intelligible boundaries, such as roads,
rivers, bridges and the like.
(2) A person appointed to be a Forest Settlement Officer
under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall be an officer of
the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Revenue
Divisional Officer.
(3) Any forest officer may represent the Forest Department
at the inquiry conducted under this Chapter."
Section 7 of the A.P. Forest Act
"7. Bar of accrual of fresh rights and prohibition of
clearings:- (1) During the interval between the publication of
a notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette under Section
4 and the date fixed by the notification under Section 15-
(a)
no right shall be acquired by any person in or
over the land included in the notification under
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
91
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
Sec. 4 except by succession or under a grant or
contract in writing made or entered into by or on
behalf of the Government or any person in whom
such right was vested before the publication of
the notification under Section 4;
(b)
no new house shall be built or plantation formed,
no fresh clearing for cultivation or for any other
purpose shall be made, on such land and no
tress shall be cut from such land for the purpose
of trade or manufacture;
Provided that nothing shall prohibit the doing
of any act specified in this clause with the
permission in writing of the Forest Settlement
Officer; and
(c)
no person shall set fire or kindle or leave burning
any fire in such manner as to endanger or
damage such land or forest produce.
(2) No patta in such land shall be granted by or on behalf
of the Government."
Section 8 of the A.P. Forest Act
"8. Inquiry by Forest Settlement Officer:- (1) The Forest
Settlement Officer shall consider every objection and inquire
into every claim made under Section 6, after recording in
writing the statements made or evidence given in pursuance
of the proclamation published or notice served under that
section. He shall record any representation which the forest
officer, if any, representing the Forest Department under
sub-section (3) of Section 4, may make in respect of any
such objection or claim.
(2) The evidence under sub-section (1) shall be recorded
in the manner provided by the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 in appealable cases."
Section 9 of the A.P. Forest Act
"9. Powers of Forest Settlement Officer:- For the purpose
of an inquiry under Section 8, the Forest Settlement Officer
may exercise the following powers, namely:
92
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(a)
power to enter by himself or to authorise any officer
to enter upon any land and to survey, demarcate and
make a map of the land; and
(b)
the powers conferred on a Civil Court by the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, for summoning and enforcing
the attendance of any person and examining him on
oath and requiring the production of any document
or other article."
Section 10 of the A.P. Forest Act
"10. Claims to certain rights:- (1) Where the claims relate
to a right in or over any land other than the following rights:-
(a)
a right of way;
(b)
a right to water-course, or to use of water;
(c)
a right of pasture; or
(d)
a right to forest produce;
the Forest Settlement Officer shall, after considering
the particulars of such claim, and the objections of the
forest officer, if any, pass, an order, admitting or rejecting
the same wholly or in part after recording the reasons
therefor.
(2)(a) If any claim is admitted wholly or in part under subsection (1), the Forest Settlement Officer may:-
(i)
accept the voluntary surrender of the right
by the claimant or determine the amount
of compensation payable for the surrender
of the right of the claimant, as the case
may be; or
(ii)
direct the exclusion of the land from the
limits of the proposed forest: or
(iii) acquire such land in the manner provided by
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
in this sub-section referred to as the said
Act).
(b) For the purpose of acquiring such land:-
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
93
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
(i)
the acquisition shall be deemed to be
for a public purpose; and the notification
under Section 4 shall be deemed to be a
notification under sub-section (1) of Section
4 of the said Act;
(ii)
the Forest Settlement Officer shall be
deemed to be a Collector under the said
Act, and the claimant shall be deemed to be
a person interested and appearing before
him in pursuance of a notice given under
Section 9 of the said Act;
(iii) the provisions of Sections 5-A, 6,7 and 8
of the said Act shall not be applicable; and
(iv) the Forest Settlement Officer with the
consent of the claimant, or the Court as
defined in the said Act-with the consent of
the claimant and of the Government may,
instead of money compensation, award
compensation by the grant of any other
land in exchange, by the grant of any right
in or over land or partly by the grant of any
land of any right therein and partly by the
payment of money."
Section 13 of the A.P. Forest Act
"13. Appeals from the orders of Forest Settlement
Officer:- (1) Where a claim is rejected wholly or in part,
the claimant may, within ninety days from the date of the
order under sub-section (1) of Section 10 and within sixty
days from the date of the order under sub-section (1) of
Section 11, prefer an appeal to the District Court having
jurisdiction in respect of such rejection only.
(2) Where a claim is admitted under Section 10 or Section
11 in the first instance wholly or in part and where such
claim does not relate to the acquisition of any land under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a like appeal, subject to
the same period of limitation and subject to the same
conditions, may be preferred to the District Court having
94
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
jurisdiction on behalf of the Government by the forest officer
or other person, generally or specially empowered by the
Government in this behalf.
(3) Every order passed on appeal under this section shall
be final.
(4) Where the District Court, on appeal, decides that the
claim or such part thereof as has been rejected should
be admitted, the Forest Settlement Officer shall proceed
to deal with it in like manner as if it has been in the first
instance admitted by himself."
Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act
"15. Notification declaring Forest reserved:- (1) Upon
the occurrence of the following events namely:-
(a)
the period fixed under Section 6 for
preferring of an objection or a claim had
elapsed, and every objection or claim made
under that section was disposed of by the
Forest Settlement Officer; and
(b)
in any such claim was made, the period
limited by Section 13 for preferring an
appeal from the order passed on such claim
had elapsed, and every appeal presented
within such period was disposed of by the
appellate authority; and
(c)
all proceedings mentioned in Section 10
were taken and all lands, if any, to be
included in the proposed forest, which
the Forest Settlement Officer had, under
Section 10, elected to acquire under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had become
vested in the Government under Section
16 of that Act;
the Government may publish a notification specifying
definitely according to the boundary marks erected or
otherwise, the limits of the forest which it is intended to
reserve and declaring the same to be reserved from a
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
95
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
date to be fixed by such notification and from the date so
fixed, such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest.
(2) Copies of the notification shall also be published in the
District Gazette, if any, and in the manner provided for the
proclamation under Section 6."
Section 16 of the A.P. Forest Act
"16. Extinction of rights not claimed:- Rights in respect
of which no claim was preferred under Section 6 within the
period fixed under that section shall stand extinguished on
the publication of the notification under Section 15 unless,
before the publication of such notification the person
claiming them has convinced the Forest Settlement Officer
that he had sufficient cause for not preferring such claim
within that period in which case the Forest Settlement
Officer shall proceed to dispose of the claim in the manner
herein before provided."
7.
Section 2 of the A.P. Forest Act, defines a "Forest Officer", to mean a
vast category of officers. Such a forest officer is appointed to perform
any function of a forest officer under the A.P. Forest Act, or any rule
or order made thereunder. Clause (f) of Section 2 clarifies that such
Forest Officer does not include a Forest Settlement Officer appointed
under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4, thus, making a
distinction between a Forest Officer and a Forest Settlement Officer.
8.
Under Section 4(2) of the A.P. Forest Act, a Forest Settlement Officer
shall be an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of
a Revenue Divisional Officer. Wide powers have been conferred upon
the State Government to declare any land as a reserved forest, subject
to due compliance of the other provisions. This has to be done by a
notification published in Andhra Pradesh Gazette and District Gazette
under Section 4(1), by declaring its intention through a proposal.
9.
The legislature consciously did not confer any role on an officer working
under the forest department, by specifically naming an officer of the
revenue department with his designation for determining qualification,
as Forest Settlement Officer. Such an officer has to exercise quasijudicial power.
10. After the commencement of proceedings under Section 4 of the
A.P. Forest Act, even the Government is restrained from issuing any
96
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
patta to any individual, for the reason that all disputes would have
to be adjudicated under the Act, be it one of title under Section 10
or any other limited right as prescribed under Section 11 of the A.P.
Forest Act. Under Sections 8 and 9 of the A.P. Forest Act, the Forest
Settlement Officer has been conferred with powers of the civil court,
as available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as "the CPC 1908"), for the aforesaid purpose. While
exercising power, the Forest Settlement Officer may even admit the
claim wholly or in part under Section 10(2) by excluding any extent
of land which is in dispute.
11. As per Section 13 of the A.P. Forest Act, an appeal lies before the
District Court having territorial jurisdiction, which is to be filed within
a period of 90 days from the date of the order passed under Section
10 by the Forest Settlement Officer. Thus, anyone who claims a right
of ownership under Section 10 or any other limited right as illustrated
under Section 11, has to seek an adjudication of his claim before
the Forest Settlement Officer. If aggrieved, the remedy lies before
the jurisdictional District Court, subject to the limitation as prescribed
under Section 13.
12. After completion of the said exercise, the State Government
would declare the proposed land as a reserved forest by issuing
a notification under Section 15 of the A.P. Forest Act. Thereafter,
the vesting of the land takes place by way of a deeming fiction
i.e., giving the land the status of a reserved forest. Any right not
claimed with respect to the land, shall stand extinguished after the
publication under Section 15 as declared expressly under Section
16, by way of a reinforcement.
13. From the abovementioned provisions and their interpretation, it is very
clear that the completion of the process as prescribed under Section
15 of the A.P. Forest Act would result in changing the character of
land, including a forest land into a reserved forest. Thereafter, there
shall be no question of raising any dispute on its character. The
period of limitation mentioned under Section 13 of the A.P. Forest
Act cannot be breached, though one might raise an objection with
respect to its commencement.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
14. We shall start our discussion with the statement of law rendered by
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
97
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
(1980) 2 SCC 167,
"14. A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is
manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic
defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second
look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result..."
15. The legislature, in its wisdom, has chosen to restrict the scope of
review from time to time. To indicate this legislative shift, Section 376
and 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1859 (hereinafter referred
to as "the CPC 1859"), Section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure
1877 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC 1877"), Section 114 and
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC 1908 are reproduced herein below,
Section 376 of the CPC 1859
"376 - Review of Judgement on discovery of new
evidence: Any person considering himself aggrieved by
a decree of a Court of original jurisdiction, from which no
appeal shall have been preferred to a Superior Court - or by
a decree of a District Court in appeal from which no special
appeal shall have been admitted by the Sudder Court -
or by a decree of the Sudder Court from which either no
appeal may have been preferred to Her Majesty in Council,
or an appeal having been preferred no proceedings in the
suit have been transmitted to Her Majesty in Council - and
who from the discovery of new matter or evidence
which was not within his knowledge, or could not be
adduced by him at the time when such decree was
passed, or from any other good and sufficient reason,
may be desirous of obtaining a review of the judgement
passed against him - may apply for a review of judgement
by the Court which passed the decree."
(emphasis supplied)
Section 378 of the CPC 1859
"378 - The order of the Court for granting or refusing
the review is final: If the Court shall be of opinion that
there are not any sufficient grounds for a review, it shall
reject the application, but if it shall be of opinion that
the review desired is necessary to correct an evident
98
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
error or omission or is otherwise requisite for the
ends of justice, the Court shall grant the review, and its
order in either case, whether for rejecting the application
or granting the review, shall be final. Provided that no
review of judgement shall be granted without previous
notice to the opposite party to enable him to appear and
be heard in support of the decree of which a review is
solicited."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Section 376 of the CPC 1859 provided a larger playing field to the
court while dealing with an application to review. However, under
Section 378 of the CPC 1859, a finality was sought to be given to
the order of the court.
Section 623 of the CPC 1877
"623. Application for review of judgement: Any person
considering himself aggrieved
(a)
by a decree or order from which an appeal is hereby
allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred;
(b)
by a decree or order from which no appeal is
hereby allowed; or
(c)
by a judgement on a reference from a Court of
Small Causes,
And who from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not
be produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or order made, or on account of some mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the
decree passed or order made against him,
may apply for a review of judgement to the Court which
passed the decree or made the order, or to the Court, if
any, to which the business of the former Court has been
transferred.
A party who is not appealing from a decree may apply for
a review of judgement notwithstanding the pendency of
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
99
The State of Telangana & Ors. v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) Per LRs.
an appeal by some other party, except when the ground
of such appeal is common to the applicant and the
appellant, or when, being a respondent, he can present
to the appellate Court the case on which he applies for
the review."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, taking note of the existence of a larger power to review, the
legislature brought forth a change by adding the words "after the
exercise of due diligence". Additionally, the words "on account of
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" were
also added. This conscious inclusion clearly restricts the power
of review.
Section 114 of the CPC 1908
"114. Review.-Subject as aforesaid, any person
considering himself aggrieved,-
(a)
by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed
by this Code, but from which no appeal has been
preferred,
(b)
by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed
by this Code, or
(c)
by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the
Court which passed the decree or made the order,
and the Court may make such order thereon as it
thinks fit."
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC 1908
"1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person
considering himself aggrieved-
(a)
by a decree or order from which an appeal
is allowed, but from which no appeal has
been preferred,
(b)
by a decree or order from which no appeal
is allowed, or
(c)
by a decision on a reference from a Court
of Small Causes,
100
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and who, from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not
be produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or order made, or on account of some mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the
decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a
review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree
or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present
to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for
the review.
[Explanation.-The fact that the decision on a question
of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has
been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of
a Superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground
for the review of such judgment.]"
(emphasis supplied)
18. Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC 1908 is verbatim
similar to Section 623 of the CPC 1877, except for the Explanation to
Order XLVII Rule 1 which was added by way of an Amendment in the
year 1976. Section 114 of the CPC 1908 speaks of the circumstances,
instances and situations under which a review can be filed. The words
"as it thinks fit" cannot be interpreted to mean anything beyond what
is conferred under Order XLVII Rule 1.