…residents of Murmurem, Melaulim, Guleli, Sattari Goa vs. State of Goa, Government of Goa,

MANU/MH/1926/2012

Present Appeal filed against dismissal of suit for declaration that Appellants were in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property and that name of forest department entered in other rights column of record of rights in respect of suit property was illegal. The court held, as per condition under title of assignment, right to mines, stones, quarries, springs of mineral waters and also to springs of potable water was reserved in favour of Government. There were powers of cancellation of assignment, vested in Government and there were also powers of reversion of land, vested in Government. In terms of other conditions, assignee could not, without permission of Government, cut or fell any standing timber unless such action was necessary to prevent imminent danger to life or property. Therefore there were restrictions on Appellants over enjoyment of said granted land. Control of State was still there on said land under title of assignment. Therefore name of Government could not be deleted from occupant’s column of survey records. Admittedly remaining land was not part of title of assignment. Appellants claimed this area by way of continuous possession and enjoyment of same. Trial Court had held that Appellants had failed to prove that they had acquired title to said land by adverse possession. First Appellate Court rightly found that in memo of appeal, Appellants had claimed said land by way of adverse possession. She had concurred with findings of trial Court, with regard to claim to additional land. Appellants were not entitled to any relief with respect to land which was beyond area mentioned in title of assignment but included in survey no. 20/1. Therefore Appellants could not make any grievance about name of Government in occupants column and name of forest department figuring in other rights column of survey no. 20/1, since possession of said additional area was exclusively with Government. Insofar as prayer to direct land survey department to amend survey record, was concerned, it was well settled that such direction could not be given by Civil Court. Such function assigned to revenue authorities. Therefore Appellants would be entitled only to declaration that they were in lawful possession and enjoyment of remaining land which was part of survey no. 20/1, by virtue of title of Assignment. Appeal partly allowed and impugned judgments set aside