1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2009 1. State of Goa, represented by 2. Conservator of Forest, Government of Goa, Panaji-Goa. 3. Dy. Conservator of Forests, Government of Goa, South, Margao, Goa. (the plaintiff no.3 is authorized officer of plaintiff no.1 and 2). ... Appellants versus 1. Shri Eknath Dhavlo Gaonkar, Major of age, and his wife, 2. Mrs. Rukmini Eknath Gaonkar, Major of age. 3. Shri Laxman Purso Gaonkar, Major of age and his wife, 4. Mrs. Bhague Laxman Gaonkar, Major of age, 5. Mrs. Draupadi Vaddo Gaonkar, Major of age, 6. Shri Ganesh Vaddo Gaonkar, Major of age and his wife, 7. Mrs. Parvati Ganesh Gaonkar, Major of age, 2 8. Mrs. Anandi Gurko Bhagat, 9. Mr. Guno Gurko Bhagat, 10. Laxmi Guno Bhagat, 11. Dhavlo Gurko Bhagat, 12. Mrs. Saraswati Dhavlo Bhagat, 13. Krishna Gurdo Bhagat, 14. Subdra Krishan Bhagat, 15. Mahadev Gurko Bhagat, 16. Sunanda Mahadev Bhagat (above defendant no.8 to 16 are legal heirs of Gorkho Dhawlo Bhagat). All residents of Sanvori, Netravali, Taluka Sanguem, Goa. 17. The Director of Land Survey and Records, Panjim, Goa. 18. The Mamlatdar of Sanguem, Sanguem Goa. ... Respondents Shri M. Salkar, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants. Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Shri S. Karpe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 16. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. 3 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard. 2. The short question for my consideration in this appeal filed by the State of Goa is whether the learned District Judge was right in reckoning the period of limitation for filing the suit, provided for by sub-section(4) of Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 from 10-9-2007 or whether it ought to have been reckoned from 29-10-2007 as contended on behalf of the State of Goa? 3. Some undisputed facts are required to be stated to dispose of the present appeal which has been filed against Order dated 17-4-2009 of the learned District Judge, rejecting the plaint of the suit filed by the plaintiffs- State of Goa in terms of Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. 4. Shri Eknath Dhavlo Gaonkar(Respondent No.1, herein) along with some others and Laxmi Guno Bhagat(Respondent No.10) and others claimed certain portions of the property surveyed under no.13/1 of Village Neturlim in Sanguem taluka. The said claims were registered before the Deputy Collector under nos. 14/98 and 15/98, respectively, and an inquiry was held into the said claims under Section 14(3) of the Code which was decided by the Deputy Cololector by his Order dated 7-10-1998. They were held to be 4 in possession of certain parts. There was another Order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 16-10-1998 with a view to give effect to the Order dated 7-10-1998. 5. Against the first Order dated 7-10-1998, the Directorate of Land Survey filed two appeals before the learned Administrative Tribunal, being appeals nos.132 and 133 of 1998. Against the second Order dated 16-10-1998, the Forest Department filed two appeals being appeals nos.50 and 51 of 2000. All the four appeals were being taken up by the learned Administrative Tribunal together. However, the first two appeals, namely 132 and 133 of 1998 came to be decided by the learned Tribunal by Order dated 10-9-2007. It is undisputed that the Deputy Conservator of Forests was not only a party to these two appeals, namely 132 and 133 of 1998 but otherwise was also present when the learned Tribunal passed the Order dated 10-9-2007. At the time of disposing the first two appeals, namely 132 and 133 of 1998, the learned Tribunal did observe that in case the appellants succeeded or failed in the said two appeals that would decide the fate of the appeals nos. 50 and 51 of 2000, and further observed that the said two appeals 50 and 51 of 2000 would be decided separately after giving a separate hearing to the parties. 6. Section 14 of the said Code deals with the title of Government to lands, and sub-section(3) thereof provides that where any property or any right 5 in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Government or by any person as against the Government and the claim is disputed, such dispute shall, after due notice has been given and after holding a formal inquiry, be decided by the Collector or Survey Officer. 7. As already stated, there is no dispute that the Order dated 7-10- 1998 passed by the learned Deputy Collector was an Order under sub- section(3) of Section 14 of the said Code. Sub-Section (4) of Section 14 of the said Code further provides that any person aggrieved by an Order made under sub-section(3) or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit to contest the order within a period of one year from the date of such order, and the decision of the civil court shall be binding on the parties. Sub-Section(5) of Section 14 of the said Code further provides that any suit instituted in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed under sub-section (3) or, if appeal or revision application has been made against such order within the period of limitation, then from the date of any order passed by the appellate or revisional authority, shall be dismissed(though limitation has not been set up as a defence) if the suit is brought to set aside such order in consideration with such order or if the relief claimed is inconsistent with such order, provided that the plaintiff has had due notice of such order. 6 8. The learned District Judge in para 11 of the impugned Judgment has observed that a perusal of the common Judgment dated 10-9-2007 revealed that the plaintiff no.2 (Forest Department) herein was a party to the said proceedings, and was here before passing of the said Order. The learned District Judge has further observed that plaintiff no.2 (Forest Department) was impleaded and heard in Appeal Nos.132 and 133 of 1998 which was decided by a common Order and that the Government of Goa who in substance, represents the plaintiffs in the suit were parties before the Deputy Collector as well as the Administrative Tribunal. The learned District Judge has further observed that the plaintiffs were therefore duly represented and heard before the Deputy Collector as well as before the Tribunal, and that it could not be disputed that the Tribunal had finally decided the rights of the parties to survey no.30/1 vide its common Judgment and Order dated 10-9-2007, and that the appeal nos.50 and 51 of 2000 were only against an Order to implement the rights of the parties decided by the Tribunal in appeal nos.132 and 133 of 1998. The learned District Judge therefore held that the cause of action for the plaintiffs therefore had arisen on 10-9-2007, and in terms of sub-section(4) of Section 14 of the said Code the aggrieved party had to approach the Court within one year from 10-9-2007, and the suit which was filed by the plaintiffs on 8-10-2008 which was beyond the period of one year could not be entertained on account of the said period of limitation. 7 9. Shri M. Salkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants i.e. the State of Goa represented through the Conservator of Forest and the Deputy Conservator of Forest submits that the Department of Forest was not a party in appeal nos.132 and 133 of 1998 decided by the Tribunal on 10-9-2007. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the learned Tribunal had expressedly stated in its Order dated 10-9-2007 that the appeal nos.50 and 51 of 2000 would be decided separately. Learned Counsel submits that the Forest Depqrtment had filed the next appeals, namely, 50 and 51 of 2000 which were decided on 29-10-2007, and, therefore the period of limitation had to be reckoned not from 10-9-2007 but from 29-10-2007, and if so reckoned, the suit filed by the plaintiffs would be well within time. 10. On the other hand, Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 16 submits that the inquiry which was made was made into a claim of the Government, no matter which department represented the Government in the said inquiry. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Government was very much a party in the first two appeals, namely 132 and 133 of 1998 and was represented not only through the Directorate of Land Survey but also through the Conservator of Forests, and, therefore the appeal had to be filed by the Government within one year from the date of decision in the first two appeals i.e. 10-9-2007. 8 Moreover, learned Senior Counsel submits that the next two appeals, namely 50 and 51 of 2000 were appeals which were filed from Order dated 16-10-1998 which was passed in order to give effect to the main Order dated 17-10-1998, and once the Government had failed to succeed in the first two appeals against the main Order, the next two appeals were bound to be dismissed. 11. In my view, the findings of the learned District Judge cannot be faulted. The submissions of Shri Salkar, learned Additional Government Advocate are incorrect and otherwise cannot be accepted. Firstly, it must be noted that the Conservator of Forests and the Director of Land Survey are only two departments of the Goa Government and they have no separate existence. They may represent the State of Goa which alone is a legal entity. The Conservator of Forests was very much a party and was also otherwise present on 10-9-2007 when the first two appeals, namely 132 and 133 of 1998 were decided by the Tribunal on 10-9-2007, and those two appeals were against the final Order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 7-10-1998, and, therefore it is but obvious that the State of Goa was well aware of the dismissal of the said two appeals through the Officers who represented it. Secondly, it was already indicated by the learned Tribunal, that the result of the next two appeals, namely 50 and 51 of 2000 would depend upon the result of the first two appeals, namely 132 and 133 of 1998, and that being so, the Government 9 ought to have filed the Civil Suit within one year from 10-9-2007. Thirdly, it is the claim of the Government which was being inquired into, and whether the Government was represented in the said claim by the Conservator of Forests or for that matter by the Director of Land Survey would be of no consequence since the said two departments are departments of the same Government which alone is a legal entity. 12. From whatever angle one looks at the case of the appellants/plaintiffs/State of Goa, the suit filed by the plaintiffs beyond one year from 10-9-2007 was clearly time barred in terms of Section 14(4) of the Land Revenue Code, 1968. 13. I find there is no merit in this appeal, and consequently the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD