SUGANDHA MANIK KANE Vs. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question that arises in the present petition for determination is whether on promulgation of survey, the inquiry under Section 14 (3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") in respect of a land in such village, town or city is barred?

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision in the matter are that the Range Forest Officer of Canacona, sometimes in April, 1981 brought to the notice of the respondent No. 3 herein that though the department of forest is in possession of the land surveyed under No. 43 of Maulinge of Cotigao Village of Canacona Taluka, which covers huge part of forest land, the same is shown in the survey records in the name of Boruskar family of Borus Loliem and, therefore, the inquiry under Section 14 (3) of the Code was necessary. Pursuant to the said application, notice under Section 14 (3) of the Code was issued, to which the petitioners herein objected to by filing their written statement. When the matter came up for inquiry before the Dy. Collector and S. D. O. at Quepem, the petitioners herein orally raised preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction of the authority to hear the matter on account of the fact that the survey of the Village of Maulinge of Cotigao was already promulgated and, therefore, there was no question of holding any inquiry under Section 14 (3) of the Code. The Dy. Collector, on the ground that there is presumption available under Section 105 of the Code, upheld the objection and dismissed the application of the Range Forest Officer, regarding the need for holding inquiry. Being aggrieved, the respondents No. 1 and 2 preferred appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. It appears that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, however; the Tribunal, after condoning the delay allowed to appeal and set aside the order of the Dy. Collector and remanded the matter for necessary inquiry under Section 14 (3) of the Code, in view of the application filed by the Range Forest Officer. It is against this Judgment of the Tribunal that the present petition has been filed, raising the point above stated.

(3.) SHRI Zellar DSouza, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners drawing my attention to Section 96 of the Code and Rules 6 and 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue (Record of Rights and Register of Cultivators) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called as the "said Rules"), submitted that once record of rights in respect of a land are promulgated after conducting necessary inquiry in terms of the Rules 6 and 7 of the said Rules, it is not permissible for the Collector or any other authority appointed under the Code to hold inquiry under Section 14 (3) of the Code, even though any application is filed on behalf of the Government for such inquiry. He further submitted that in terms of Sections 94 and 95, the Government is enjoined with the powers to take all measures for preparation of land records in respect of all the land in the State and Section 95 clearly provides that such records should contain the particulars regarding names of the persons who are occupants of the land including tenancy rights and other rights claimed by the parties. Further Section 96 provides that the person acquiring right either by way of succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise should report to the Talathi about acquisition of such rights and pursuant to such report, the records are to be updated by the Talathi. Further Rule 6 of the said Rules provides that the Talathi, on the basis of the information under Sections 96 and 97 or such information as he may collect by making local inquiry, has to prepare a draft index in Form III. Other sub-rules of the said Rule 6 clearly provide for detail and comprehensive procedure to be followed by the Talathi and other revenue Officers while finalising such land records and ample opportunity is provided for every one to putforth their objections in respect of such records before the same are finalised. The Legislature in its wisdom has provided a detail procedure giving ample opportunity to each and every one to putforth their claim regarding the land which is subject matter of survey and also to prove their claim before the Survey Officer and it is only after analysing the claim and hearing the parties that such records are finalised. Considering the fact that the detail procedure has been prescribed for, before finalisation of the record of rights, it cannot be presumed that such record of rights could be re-opened by any person and for that matter including the Government at any time after such finalisation. Drawing my attention to Sections 103 and 113 of the said Code, learned Advocate submitted that the Legislature in its wisdom has provided that application under those provisions can be filed at any point of time. No such provision is made in Section 14 (3) of the Code. If it was the intention of the Legislature that an inquiry under Section 14 can be held at any point of time, then the Legislature would have provided so in Section 14 (3) itself. Plain reading of Section 14 (3), therefore, does not suggest in any manner that inquiry under said Section can be held even after promulgation of survey records.