1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 115/2001 1. State of Goa, through the Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Goa, Panaji – Goa. 2. The Collector, South Sub-Division, Margao – Goa. 3. The Director of Survey & Settlement Officer, Panaji – Goa. 4. The Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Panaji – Goa. … Appellant Versus 1. Shri Narayan V. Gaonkar, Son of late Vishnu Gaonkar, major, married, landlord, resident of House No. 52, Sulcorna, Quepem, Goa. 2. Shri Shivram V. Gaonkar, Son of Vishnu Gaonkar, major, married, agriculturist, resident of Sulcorna, Quepem-Goa (since deceased) through legal heirs; 2 a) Smt. Tulsi S. Gaonkar, widow of Shivram V. Gaonkar, major; b) Shri Vishnu S. Gaonkar, son of Shivram V. Gaonkar, major; c) Shri Krishna S. Gaonkar, son of Shivram V. Gaonkar, major; d) Shrimati Vasant Sawant, major; e) Smt. Gulabi Kushali Fal Desai, major; f) Smt. Sushma Vishnu Gaonkar, major; g) Smt. Kalpana Krishna Gaonkar; major; All residents of Sulcorna, Quepem – Goa. 3. Shri Rama S.F. Dessai, son of late Shaba Fotto Dessai, major, married, landlord, resident of Colomba, Cavrem, Sanguem-Goa. … Respondents. Mr. M. Salkar, Government Advocate for the Appellants. None present for the Respondents. 3 Coram: S.A. BOBDE, J. Date: 30 th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Salkar, learned Government Advocate for the appellants. 2. This appeal is by the State against the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Quepem in Special Civil Suit No. 64/1995, by which the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the suit and the counter claim. The plaintiffs- respondents filed the suit claiming to be the owners in possession of the property known as “Conda Moll” or “Bindangal” or “Bindan Moll” or “Caria Moll”, situated in village Sulcorna, Quepem, Goa, inscribed in the Land Revenue office of Quepem under Matriz No. 4. 4 3. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, they were in possession of the property for the last several years, directly or through their predecessors. They claim that the name of the Forest Department only appears in the occupants column of the property record though the State has no right. They, therefore, pray for deletion of the name of the defendants from the survey records. 4. According to the defendants-appellants, the entire suit property admeasuring 23,04,500 square metres is in their possession and belongs to the Forest Department. They, therefore, pray for deletion of the name of the plaintiffs from the survey records. 5. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the Matriz document at Exhibit-PW1/C, which shows that the property is recorded in the name of Essu Gauncar, Horry Gauncar, Mocunda Gauncar and Gonoba Gauncar and 5 Siva Gauncar, held that the plaintiffs-respondents established that they are in possession of the property and that the names of the plaintiffs' ancestors are also recorded in the survey records. The Court specifically rejected the contention of the defendants-appellants that the Matriz document does not pertain to the suit property since the said document specifically mentions the name of the suit property as “Conea Moll”, “Bindarigall” or “Bindari Moll”. The learned Trial Court relied on the evidence to come to the conclusion that the survey records correctly show that possession of property is with the plaintiffs- respondents. 6. As regards the claim of the defendants- appellants that the property is in their possession, the Court has observed that the Range Forest Officer, who deposed before the Court was not even aware if, the property belonged to the Government or whether the 6 existing trees were planted by them. The contention that notification published in the Official Gazette “Reparticao de Fomento”, dated 11-01-1951 had an effect of conferring right on the Department is also rejected since the notification does not even specify the survey numbers and the notification gives no boundaries . 7. In the result, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the plaintiffs-respondents prayer for title and has also dismissed the defendants-appellants counter claim that they are owners of the property. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. S. A. BOBDE, J. Ev