In Cases Relating To Rivers & Forests, Constitutional Courts Are Not Merely Arbiters But Stakeholders Too: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that in cases relating to rivers and forests, Constitutional Courts are not merely arbiters but the stakeholders also.
The Court observed thus in a Regular First Appeal (RFA) preferred by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and the State Government, challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional Senior Civil Judge by which the declaration suit was decreed.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Krishna S. Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar remarked, “The doctrine of public trust enjoins upon the Government to protect these resources. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) centuries ago declared “That belongs to all belongs to none and that belongs to none belongs to all”. India is a signatory to several International Conventions concerning Forests, Ecology and Environment. These covenants/conventions which have been ratified by India are binding to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the domestic law2. In cases relating to rivers and forests, the constitutional courts are not mere arbiters but the stake holders too. Cases of that nature cannot be treated as a lis inter parte. All this should prelude our discussion in the matter.”
HCGP Spoorthi Hegde represented the appellants while Advocate Prakash T. Hebbar represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The respondents filed the suit for declaration of title, for possession and for injunction in respect of suit lands. The appellant KSRTC and State and its officials were defendants. The suit was founded principally on the ground that the subject lands were the ancestral properties. The plaintiffs averred that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in a set of circumstances: all through, revenue records reflected the name of Mayaga as the owner/kabjedaar of lands in question; the jurisdictional revenue authorities unlawfully changed these entries in favour of the State Forest Department; plaintiffs’ pursuit of remedies under the provisions of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (KLRA) ultimately having proved futile, they had filed the writ petition and a Single Judge of the High Court disposed of the petition relegating the plaintiffs to Civil Court inter alia on the ground that disputed facts were involved. Therefore, the said suit was filed.
The High Court in view of the above facts said, “It has been a settled position of law that once a special statute establishes separate machinery for working out the grievance, ordinarily, the jurisdiction of civil courts stands excluded vide a Five Bench decision in DHULABAI vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.”
The Court added that whether the contention as to maintainability of a suit was specifically taken in the pleadings or not, the same can be raised even in appeal, needs no mentioning, however, such a contention is loosely taken in the Written Statements.
“The last submission of learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiffs that there is abundant material to sustain the finding as to the plaintiffs being the descendants of Sri.Mayaga, does not merit deeper consideration, in view of our specific finding that the suit lands are comprised in the State Reserve Forest under the 1929 statutory Notification, regardless of 1935/1940 acquisition Notification. It is also true that the impugned judgement & decree do not satisfactorily treat contentions of the parties in this regard, despite the battle lines being drawn up by virtue of their pleadings”, it noted.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed for the updation/correction of entries in all the official records concerning the subject lands and to show the same as being part of Chamundibetta State Reserve Forest.
Cause Title- Karnataka State Road Corporation & Ors. v. Mallaiah & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellants: HCGP Spoorthi Hegde and Advocate P.D. Surana.
Respondents: Advocates Prakash T. Hebbar and Mahesh B.
