Supreme Court Remands Forest Land Dispute: State of Karnataka vs. M.A. Mohamad Sanaulla (20 September 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2022

Citation: Civil Appeal No(s). 5801 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 17195 of 2021)

Judges: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath

Can a court dismiss a case for lack of evidence without giving the party a fair chance to present its case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a dispute between the State of Karnataka and a private landowner, concerning land claimed by the State as part of a forest area. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the State’s appeal and rejecting additional evidence. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath, with the judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath.

Case Background

The case revolves around a piece of land in Chikkasanne village, within the Bhuvanahalli State Forest area. In 1921, the Mysore Forests Regulations declared an area including survey numbers 66, 67, and 68 as a State Forest. Later, during a resurvey, Survey No. 67 was renumbered as Survey No. 69. In 1936, Survey No. 69 was purchased by T.N. Subbaraiya Mudaliar in a court auction for recovery of land revenue. In 1977, M.A. Mohamad Sanaulla (Respondent No. 1) purchased 8 acres 35 guntas of this land from the auction purchaser.

The respondent claimed possession of the land, but the State authorities interfered, leading to legal disputes. The respondent initially filed a suit for injunction against the forest department, which was later decreed in his favor. Subsequently, the State filed a suit seeking a declaration that the land belonged to the forest department and for a mandatory injunction to remove the respondent’s fence. The Trial Court dismissed the State’s suit, and the High Court upheld the dismissal, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially filed a suit (OS No. 600 of 1981) for a permanent injunction against the forest department, which was initially dismissed by the Munsiff Court but later allowed in appeal by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore. The State then filed a second appeal before the High Court, which was later withdrawn after the State filed a new suit (OS No. 34 of 1997, later renumbered as OS No. 1424 of 2006) seeking a declaration that the land belonged to the forest department and a mandatory injunction against the respondent. The Trial Court dismissed the State’s suit. The State’s appeal before the High Court (RFA No. 1287 of 2012) was also dismissed, along with the rejection of an application to admit additional evidence (IA No. 1 of 2021) related to a joint survey conducted during the appeal. Criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent were quashed by the High Court, which allowed for a survey to be conducted if encroachment was found.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 4 of the Forest Regulation read with Section 17 of the Mysore Forests Regulations: These provisions relate to the declaration of State Forests. The notification dated 08.01.1921 was issued under these provisions to declare the Bhuvanahalli State Forest area.
• Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This provision allows for the admission of additional evidence in appellate proceedings under certain conditions. The State sought to introduce the survey report under this provision.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Karnataka) Arguments:

• The Trial Court did not provide adequate opportunity to the State to present its case. The Forest Range Officer (PW1) was not cross-examined, and the court proceeded to decide the suit hastily.
• The High Court erred in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC to admit the joint survey report conducted after the Trial Court’s judgment. This survey was crucial to prove encroachment.
• The courts below failed to consider that Survey No. 67 was renumbered as Survey No. 69 during the resurvey. The 1921 notification included Survey No. 67, which later became Survey No. 69, and thus, the land was part of the forest area.
• The land, once declared as forest land in 1921, could not have been auctioned in 1936 and subsequently sold to the respondent.

Respondent (M.A. Mohamad Sanaulla) Arguments:

• The auction sale of 1936 and the subsequent sale deed of 1977 were not challenged, and therefore, the suit was rightly dismissed.
• The 1936 auction sale was for recovery of land revenue, indicating that Survey No. 69 was not forest land.
• The State acted in a discriminatory manner by targeting the respondent while not taking action against other landowners in the area.
• The revenue authorities partitioned Survey No. 69 into five sub-plots, indicating that it is not forest land.
• The entire area of Survey No. 69 is developed and cannot be considered forest land.
• Revenue entries from 1936 onwards are in favor of the auction purchasers and their successors.
• The criminal proceedings initiated by the State against the respondent were quashed by the High Court.
• Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Elizabeth Jacob vs. District Collector, Idukki & Ors. [2008(15) SCC 166], for the proposition that merely alleging that a land is a forest land is not enough; it has to be established.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether the State was given adequate opportunity to present its case before the Trial Court.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the application to admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.
3. Whether the courts below erred in not considering the resurvey of land and the change of survey numbers.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court did not explicitly accept or reject the proposition from Elizabeth Jacob vs. District Collector, Idukki & Ors. [2008(15) SCC 166], but emphasized the need for proper evidence to establish that the land was forest land.
• The Court acknowledged the relevance of Section 4 of the Forest Regulation read with Section 17 of the Mysore Forests Regulations in relation to the 1921 notification.
• The Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure that both parties receive a fair opportunity to present their case. The Court emphasized that the State was not given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine its witness and that the High Court should have admitted the additional evidence related to the survey, especially given that it was conducted based on the High Court’s own order. The Court’s reasoning was based on principles of natural justice and the need for a thorough examination of all relevant evidence.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments and evidence and concluded that the State had been denied adequate opportunity to present its case. The Court noted that the Trial Court had proceeded with undue haste in deciding the suit after the State’s witness failed to appear for cross-examination. Additionally, the Court found that the High Court had erred in rejecting the application to admit additional evidence, particularly the survey report, which was crucial for the proper adjudication of the case. The Court also highlighted that the courts below had not taken into account the change in survey numbers during the resurvey, which was a significant aspect of the case.

The Court stated, “The time for producing a witness to prove the plaint averments as also other supporting material ought to have been extended in the interest of justice.”

The Court further added, “This exercise having been undertaken after the judgment of the Trial Court dated 08.03.2012 the survey report and the other material related to it ought to have been allowed by the High Court to be admitted as evidence as it was relevant for the proper adjudication for the issues arising in the suit, of course with the rider that the respondent would have a right of rebuttal.”

The Court also noted, “It is not in issue that in 1921 notification under the Forest Regulation Survey No. 67 was covered. Subsequently in the resurvey, its number is changed to 69. It would automatically be understood that Survey No. 69 (new) was notified as Forest Land way back in 1921.”

Key Takeaways

• Courts must provide adequate opportunity to parties to present their case, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.
• Appellate courts should be liberal in admitting additional evidence that is relevant to the case, especially when it was not available at the trial stage.
• Courts should consider the impact of resurveys and changes in survey numbers when determining the status of land.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and the need for a thorough examination of all relevant evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh decision. The Trial Court was directed to afford due opportunity to the appellant to lead both documentary and oral evidence, and a corresponding right of rebuttal to the respondent. The Trial Court was expected to make an endeavor to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that courts must ensure that parties are given adequate opportunity to present their case, and that relevant evidence, especially that which was not available at the trial stage, should be admitted in appellate proceedings. This judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but it emphasizes the importance of these principles in the context of land disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in The State of Karnataka vs. M.A. Mohamad Sanaulla emphasizes the importance of fair procedure and thorough consideration of evidence in legal proceedings, particularly in land disputes. By remanding the case back to the Trial Court, the Supreme Court ensures that both the State and the respondent receive a fair opportunity to present their case, and that all relevant evidence is considered before a final decision is made.