UNION OF INDIA Vs. JITENDRASINGH MOHANSINGH PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendants appeal. The present Respondents filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.30 of 1996 before the Civil Judge, Dadra, Nagar Haveli at Silvassa. The Respondents sought various reliefs including a challenge to a notification dated 25th February 1988 issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927. A permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the Appellants herein from implementing, enforcing in any manner the said Notification dated 25th February, 1988. There was an alternative prayer seeking declaration that the said Notification does not apply to the case of the Respondents herein. The trial Court by its Judgment dated 10th September, 1996 partly decreed the suit. Trial Court rejected the prayer sought for by the Respondents that the Notification No.ADM/Law/DCF 17-418-F.D. dated 25th February, 1988 is illegal and ultra vires. The trial Court gave a declaration that the Notification dated 25th February, 1988 is not applicable to the Respondents suit land admeasuring 93127 sq.mtrs. consisting of survey Nos. 197, 362 to 367 situated at Village Silvassa. The trial Court further held that the conditions imposed of directing Respondents herein to keep 30 mtrs. margin from edge of the kotar (rain water drain) on the plaintiffs land by Defendant No.5 is illegal and bad-in-law and hence is quashed and set aside. A permanent injunction was granted restraining the Appellants herein from implementing and enforcing in any manner whatsoever the Notification dated 25th February 1988 to the suit land.

(2.) THE Appellants aggrieved by the said order preferred an Appeal to the District Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli being Regular Civil Appeal No.8 of 1996. It may be mentioned that cross-objections regarding the validity of the Notification dated 25th February 1988 were also filed. By judgment dated 28th February, 1997 the Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal as also the cross-objections. Hence this Second Appeal.

(3.) THE contention of the Appellants on the one hand is that the said Notification applies to the land in question and at the same breath they contend that they have been in correspondence with the authority for revocation of the said Notification. Some arguments were also advanced as to the applicability of the Conservation of Forests Act, 1980 to the land in question. It s made clear that issue in respect of the Conservation of Forests Act is not being considered as it was not in issue before the trial Court nor the issue was framed in respect thereof nor any pleading taken up before the trial Court as to the applicability of the Conservation of Forests Act 1980. So also in the First Appeal. This Appeal is being disposed off on the plaint as it stands and the issues involved therein.