Supreme Court settles land ownership dispute: State of Goa vs. Narayan V. Gaonkar (2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Dispute over land ownership and the validity of entries in land records.

CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Land Revenue

Case Name: State of Goa vs. Narayan V. Gaonkar & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: March 04, 2020

Date of the Judgment: March 04, 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 245

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can a state government claim ownership of land based on forest declarations, even if private parties have claimed ownership and possession? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a land dispute in Goa. The core issue revolved around conflicting claims of ownership over a parcel of land, with the State of Goa asserting its rights based on a forest notification and the respondents claiming ownership through ancestral records. This judgment clarifies the importance of proper land record entries and the effect of withdrawal of objections during land surveys. The judgment was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan, with Justice Navin Sinha concurring.

Case Background

The case originated from a civil suit filed by Shri Narayan V. Gaonkar and others (respondents) in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem, Goa. The respondents sought the deletion of the “Forest Department” name from the survey entry No. 11/1 of village Sulcorna and a declaration of their exclusive ownership of the property. The State of Goa (appellant) and its various departments were the defendants, who contested the claim, asserting that the land belonged to the Forest Department. The defendants also filed a counter-claim seeking the removal of the respondents’ names from the occupant’s column of the survey records.

The respondents claimed ownership based on their ancestors’ names being recorded in the Matriz document. The State, on the other hand, relied on a 1951 notification declaring the area as a forest and subsequent entries in the land records.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court dismissed the respondents’ suit, holding that they failed to prove ownership but upheld their possession. The trial court also rejected the appellant’s counter-claim. The State of Goa appealed to the High Court of Bombay at Goa, which upheld the trial court’s decision. The High Court also affirmed the rejection of the State’s counter-claim. The State of Goa then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, and the Goa, Daman and Diu (Record of Rights and Register of Cultivators) Rules, 1969.

Section 14 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, deals with the title of the Government to lands, stating that:

“All lands, public roads, lanes and paths and bridges, ditches, dikes and fences on or beside the same, the bed of the sea and of harbours and creeks below the high water mark, and of rivers, streams, nallas, lakes and tanks, and all canals and water courses, and all standing and flowing water and all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, which are not the property of any person, are and are hereby declared to be the property of the Government subject to right of way, and all other rights, public and individual, legally subsisting.”

Rule 5 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Record of Rights and Register of Cultivators) Rules, 1969, provides for the issuance of public notice when the Record of Rights is introduced in any village. It states:

“When the Record of Rights is to be introduced in any village for the first time, the Talathi shall issue a public notice in Form II calling upon all persons who have any interest in the lands in the village to furnish to him either in writing or orally information on all or any of the following points within one month from the date of the public notice…”

Rule 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Record of Rights and Register of Cultivators) Rules, 1969, provides for the preparation of the Index of Lands:

“The Talathi shall on the basis of the information received under Section 96 and 97 or such information as he may collect by making local inquiry prepare a draft of the Index of land in the village in Form III.”

The Court also considered the Portuguese Colonial Mining Law, specifically Article 2 of the Decree dated 20.09.1906, which stated:

“The proprietorship of deposits of metals and metalliferous minerals, including bismuth, arsenic, antimony, sulphur, graphite, combustible minerals with the exception of peat, bituminous substances and mineral oils, precious stones, alkalis, phosphates, mica and amianthus belongs to the State; such beds cannot be prospected or worked without licence and concession by Government in the terms of the present Decree.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The trial court rejected the respondents’ claim of ownership, and since no appeal was filed, this finding is final.
• A Gazette Notification dated 11.01.1951 declared the suit property as a forest.
• Land survey records under the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968, show the Forest Department as the owner of Survey No. 11.
• A complaint by one of the respondents, Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar, was withdrawn, and thus, their names should not have been added to the survey records.
• The State granted a mining lease on Survey No. 11/1, indicating State possession.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents’ ancestors were recorded in Matriz document No. 4, proving their ownership.
• The complaint filed by Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar was regarding adjoining land, not the suit land.
• Withdrawal of the complaint does not affect the respondents’ rights.
• The State can grant mining leases even if the land is privately owned.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the counter-claim filed by the appellant had rightly been rejected by the courts below.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the State of Goa, holding that the counter-claim filed by the State should have been allowed. The Court directed the deletion of the respondents’ names from the occupant’s column in survey No. 11/1 of Sulcorna Village, Quepem Taluka, District Goa.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Section 14 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968* to affirm that the government owns lands not owned by any person.
• The Court used Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Record of Rights and Register of Cultivators) Rules, 1969* to highlight the procedure for land record entries and how the respondents’ names were illegally added.
• The Court relied on Article 2 of the Decree dated 20.09.1906* to reiterate the State’s ownership of minerals.
• The Court followed the ratio of Fabrica da Igreja de N.s. de Milagres vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 1 Bom CR 588* to clarify that a matriz document is not a document of title.
• The Court followed the ratio of Smt. Maria Teresa Philomena D’Rocha Pegado vs. State of Goa and others, Writ Petition No. 158 of 2005* to reiterate that the State is the proprietor of all minerals beneath the land.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Illegality of Land Record Entries: The Court found that the addition of the respondents’ names in the survey records was illegal, as it occurred after one of the respondents withdrew his objection.
• Withdrawal of Objection: The withdrawal of the complaint by Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar was a significant factor. The Court noted that after the withdrawal, there was no basis for adding the respondents’ names to the land records.
• Forest Notification: The 1951 Gazette Notification declaring the area as forest land was given weight, although it did not specifically mention the survey number.
• Mining Lease: The fact that the State had granted a mining lease for the land was considered evidence of the State’s possession and control over the land.
• Matriz Document: The Court reiterated that the Matriz document is not a title document and cannot be used to claim ownership.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but ultimately rejected them in favor of the State’s claim. The court emphasized the importance of legal procedures in land record entries and the significance of the withdrawal of objections. The Court also noted that the respondents had not disclosed the relevant facts regarding the 1975 proceedings in their suit.

The Court stated:

“When Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar had withdrawn his claim for deletion of name of Forest Department, we fail to comprehend that as to how despite that withdrawal which is duly recorded in the proceedings their names can be added along with Forest Department against survey No.11/1.”

The Court further observed:

“Thus, the recording of names of the plaintiffs in survey No.11/1 along with the name of the Forest Department was illegal and not as per Rule 6 of Rules, 1969.”

The Court also noted:

“The matriz document which is claimed to be the basis of rights by the plaintiffs-respondents is not the document of title.”

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the outcome and the reasoning.

Key Takeaways

• Land record entries must be made according to the prescribed legal procedures.
• Withdrawal of objections during land surveys has significant legal implications.
• Matriz documents are not considered valid documents of title.
• State ownership of land can be established through forest notifications and mining leases.
• Parties must disclose all relevant facts in legal proceedings, including prior land record proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the names of the plaintiffs-respondents be deleted from the occupant’s column in survey No. 11/1 of Sulcorna Village, Quepem Taluka, District Goa.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that entries in land records must be made according to the prescribed legal procedures, and the withdrawal of objections during land surveys has significant legal implications. This case reinforces the principle that Matriz documents are not valid documents of title. The judgment clarifies that a state government can establish its claim to land through forest notifications and mining leases, provided that the procedures for land record entries are followed correctly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Goa vs. Narayan V. Gaonkar & Ors. settled a long-standing land dispute by emphasizing the importance of proper land record entries and the legal implications of withdrawing objections. The Court upheld the State’s claim to the land, clarifying that Matriz documents are not valid title documents and that forest notifications and mining leases can be used to establish ownership. The decision underscores the need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures in land disputes.