1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 88 OF 2008. Shree Saunsthan Gokarna Partagal Jeevottam Mutt, a Hindu religious Endowment, represented by it sole Proprietor Pontiff/Swami Sripad Vidyadhiraj Teerth Shripad Vader Swami, Aged years, residing at House No.84, Shri Gokarn Partagali Jeevottam Mutt, Partagalim Poinguinim,, Canacona, Goa- 403 702, through his constituted Attorney, Shri Vasudev Venkatesh Phal Dessai, aged about 71 years, residing at H.No.837, Velvada, Poinguinim, Canacona, Goa. .. Petitioners. Versus State of Goa, represented by its Chief Secretary, having office at Secretariat .. Respondents Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Government Advocate for the respondent. Coram :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date :- 18 th November, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the 2 petitioner and Ms. W.Coutinho, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, Fast Track Court No.1, South Goa, Margao in Civil Suit No.76/2004 by which the said suit has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 4. Briefly, the facts leading to the filing of the present petition, are as under : The petitioner herein filed above suit against the respondent / defendant for declaration that it is the owner in possession of the property bearing Survey No.160/1 admeasuring 139825 square metres. The defendant contested the suit. One of the defences set up in the written statement, is that an area of 43448 square metres, was declared as reserved forest by notification issued under Indian Forest Act and, therefore, the suit was barred under Section 20 of the said Act. Consequently, the Trial Court framed issue No.3 pertaining to jurisdiction of this Court and by the impugned order held that the suit was barred in view of the notification issued by the Government under 3 Indian Forest Act declaring the area of 43448 square metres as reserved forest. 5. Mr. Usgaonkar,learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had sought relief in respect of the entire survey No.160/1 admeasuring 139825 square metres and as such the notification declaring 43448 sqaure metres' area as reserved forest, would not have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit for declaration filed before the Civil Court. He, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction while passing the impugned order and dismissing the suit. 6. Per contra, Ms. W. Coutinho, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. Perusal of the impugned order and record discloses that the suit filed by the plaintiff, is in respect of entire survey No.160/1 admeasuring 139825 square metres and the Trial Court has dismissed the suit solely on the ground that an area of 43448 square metres out of the total area, was declared as reserved forest by notification issued by Government of Goa. Obviously, the said notification would not oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of 4 the entire survey number. Even if it is accepted that the part of the area, was declared as reserved forest, the suit filed claiming title to property bearing survey No.160/1 admeasuring 139825 square metres, could not have been dismissed. On this ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. The Trial Court shall permit the parties to lead evidence on all issues and decide the suit in accordance with law. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 06.01.2009 at 10.00 a.m. 8. At this stage, Mr.Usgaonkar submits that the issues have not been properly framed by the Trial Court and seeks leave to file an application before the Trial Court for reframing of issues. Leave granted. If the petitioner chooses to file an application for reframing of issues, the Trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA