Case: STATE OF GOA Vs. NARAYAN V. GAONKAR &amp; ORS

is a mere administrative exercise aimed at collecting tax revenues from the land. As such no legal evidentiary value can be attributed also to the said registration for the purpose of establishing ownership title or presuming possession on the land. 25. More so, the plaintiffs ought to have agitated for their claim with regard to survey No.11/1 and ought not to have withdrawn application dated 07.08.1975 before the Revenue Official. It is relevant to notice that in the suit which was filed by the plaintiffs any mention of the proceedings regarding records of rights of survey No.11/1 undertaken earlier were not referred to and the mention of proceedings under Revenue Code, 1968 and Rules, 1969 is conspicuously absent. The trial court having dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaring them owner of survey No.11/1, we do not find any justification for continuance of the names of the plaintiffs in survey No.11/1 of Village Sulcorna. 26. The State in its written statement has claimed that Sulcorna has declared as forest by Gazette Notification dated 11.01.1951 which Gazette was filed as Annexure AA-3 filed on the record which mentions Forests Sulcorna and the name of Village Sulcorna, the Court below had not placed reliance on the said Gazette only for the reason that the Gazette does not mention any survey number. Survey No.11 was situate in the Forest area is further proved by the documents brought on the record by the appellant i.e. Mining Lease which was granted w.e.f 22.11.1987 for survey No.2 of Village Curpem and survey No.11 of Village Sulcorna. The conditions of the Lease Deed indicate that survey numbers on which Lease was granted situate in the Forest area, the relevant condition No.4 of the Lease is as follows: To enter upon reserved forests. 4. Notwithstanding anything in this Schedule contained the lessee/lessees shall not enter upon any reserve forests included in the said lands without previous sanction in writing of the District Forest Officer nor fell cut a use any timber or trees without obtaining the sanction in writing of that Officer nor otherwise than in accordance with such conditions as the State Government may prescribe. 27. In the Chapter of General Provisions, Clause 15 requires Lease status of forest land will remain unchanged. 28. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was to delete the name of Forest Department from survey No.11 which suit having been dismissed the name of the Forest Department continues with regard to survey o.11/1. Even though Gazette dated 11.01.1951 does not mention survey No.11 but Forest was declared in Village Sulcorna and Survey No.11 is forest land is proved by other evidence. We are satisfied that the counter- claim filed by the State deserved to be allowed and the name of the plaintiffs-respondents from survey No.11/1 deserved to be struck off. 29. Learned counsel for the respondents relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court at Goa in Writ Petition No.158 of 2005 (Smt. Maria Teresa Philomena DRocha Pegado vs. State of Goa and others), has submitted that Portuguese Colonial Mining Law was in force prior to Goa becoming Union Territory and the State was owner of proprietorship of all deposits of minor minerals etc. which was so noted in the above case by the Bombay High Court. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred paragraphs 14 and 31 of the judgment which are to the following effect: 14. It would be relevant to refer to Article 2 of Decree dated 20.09.1906 which was a Portuguese Colonial Mining Law in force during the erstwhile regime, which reads thus: The proprietorship of deposits of metals and metalliferous minerals, including bismuth, arsenic, antimony, sulphur, graphite, combustible minerals with the exception of peat, bituminous substances and mineral oils, precious stones, alkalis, phosphates, mica and amianthus belongs to the State; such beds cannot be prospected or worked without licence and concession by Government in the terms of the present Decree.A perusal of Article 2 of the aforesaid decree would reveal that all metals and metal-liferous minerals belong to the State and such beds cannot be prospected or worked without licence and concession by the Government. 31. We are, therefore, of the considered view that in view of the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 14 and Section 36 of the Land Revenue Code, read with the provisions of Article 2 of Decree dated 20.09.1906 which was a Portuguese Colonial Mining Law, the right in the minor minerals vests solely in the State Government and the State Government has all powers necessary for the purpose of enjoyment of such rights. We find that this position is fortified by the provisions of Section 24A of the said Act, which is applicable to all minerals, including minor minerals. 30. The above judgment of the Bombay High Court reiterated that it is the State which is the proprietor of all minerals beneath the land. There can be no dispute to the above proposition. For the purpose of this case what was relied by the appellant was that Mining Lease granted for survey No.11, Lease conditions clearly mention the area as forest area with the requirement to maintain the status of land as the forest land. The grant of Lease by the State is not disputed by the plaintiffs-respondents also. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that the name of the Forest Department recorded in survey No.11, deletion of which has been refused and the name of plaintiffs-respondents in the record in the manner and circumstances in which it came on the records of rights does not establish any claim of the plaintiffs-respondents and defendant has clearly made out the case for allowing counter-claim. The additional evidence brought on record by the State before this Court which has been accepted on record fully support the counter-claim of the defendant. We, thus, are of the view that counter-claim of the defendant-appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of courts below is to be modified to the above extent.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. We have noticed above that as per Rule 5 in Form II notice was issued inviting all persons who have any interest in the lands in the village to furnish to him either in writing or orally information and objection. In the present case after draft of the Index of Lands prepared under Rule 6 objection was filed by Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar as noted above on which individual notice was also issued to him in Form VI asking him to appear on 20.10.197518. The record of proceeding sheet dated 20.10.1975 indicates that after recording the statement of Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar the case was closed. The above proceedings indicate that the objection filed by Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar was withdrawn and hence there was no decision taken in Dispute Case No.3. Even after withdrawal of the claim by the plaintiff, the names of plaintiffs, Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar, Narayan Vishnu Gaonkar and Rama S.F. Dessai were added by correcting the Form III in red ink as required by sub-Rule(6) of Rule 6. The entry of names of the above persons along with Forest Department was stated to be as per D.C.3 as is clear from Form III Annexure-2 brought on record by the appellant. A coloured print of above Annexure-2 has been placed before us by learned ASG which is taken on record, which indicates that in Form III the addition of names of three persons was by red ink. When Vishnu Shivram Gaonkar had withdrawn his claim for deletion of name of Forest Department, we fail to comprehend that as to how despite that withdrawal which is duly recorded in the proceedings their names can be added along with Forest Department against survey No.11/1. Thus, the recording of names of the plaintiffs in survey No.11/1 along with the name of the Forest Department was illegal and not as per Rule 6 of Rules, 1969. When there was no decision in favour of the plaintiffs, applicant on the objection dated 07.08.1975, there was no question of adding their names in Index of Lands against survey No.11/1. The addition of the names of the plaintiffs against survey No.11/1 was completely without jurisdiction and the said entry cannot be allowed to be continued19. That in the suit filed by the plaintiffs being Special Civil Suit No.64 of 1995, there is no mention of entire proceedings regarding correction of records undertaken in 1975. The plaintiffs in the suit did not disclose the aforesaid facts which were relevant for determining the issues in consideration in the suit. Plaintiffs thus have completely failed to justify the continuance of their names against survey No.11/120. From the additional evidence brought on the record by the State, it is clear that in the record which was published of the Village Sulcarna for survey No.11, it was the name of only Forest Department which was mentioned on survey No.11 area 230.45.00 hectares and the addition of the name of Vishnu Shivaram Gaonkar and two others were in pursuance of Dispute Case No.3. The Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968 was enacted to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Land and Land Revenue in the Union of territory of Goa, Daman and Diu as then existed23. We have already noticed our order dated 10.12.2019 where these additional documents have already been accepted with direction to the respondents to file a reply to the application. The respondents do not dispute of having raised the objection after Revenue records were published mentioning Forest Department against the survey No.11/1, when the plaintiffs-respondents have withdrawn their application on 20.10.1975, they cannot be allowed to object the Entry of Forest Department regarding survey No.11/1 as published in Form II24. The matriz document which is claimed to be the basis of rights by the plaintiffs-respondents is not the document of title25. More so, the plaintiffs ought to have agitated for their claim with regard to survey No.11/1 and ought not to have withdrawn application dated 07.08.1975 before the Revenue Official. It is relevant to notice that in the suit which was filed by the plaintiffs any mention of the proceedings regarding records of rights of survey No.11/1 undertaken earlier were not referred to and the mention of proceedings under Revenue Code, 1968 and Rules, 1969 is conspicuously absent. The trial court having dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaring them owner of survey No.11/1, we do not find any justification for continuance of the names of the plaintiffs in survey No.11/1 of Village Sulcorna26. The State in its written statement has claimed that Sulcorna has declared as forest by Gazette Notification dated 11.01.1951 which Gazette was filed as Annexure AA-3 filed on the record which mentions Forests Sulcorna and the name of Village Sulcorna, the Court below had not placed reliance on the said Gazette only for the reason that the Gazette does not mention any survey number. Survey No.11 was situate in the Forest area is further proved by the documents brought on the record by the appellant i.e. Mining Lease which was granted w.e.f 22.11.1987 for survey No.2 of Village Curpem and survey No.11 of Village Sulcorna28. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was to delete the name of Forest Department from survey No.11 which suit having been dismissed the name of the Forest Department continues with regard to survey o.11/1. Even though Gazette dated 11.01.1951 does not mention survey No.11 but Forest was declared in Village Sulcorna and Survey No.11 is forest land is proved by other evidence. We are satisfied that the counter- claim filed by the State deserved to be allowed and the name of the plaintiffs-respondents from survey No.11/1 deserved to be struck off30. The above judgment of the Bombay High Court reiterated that it is the State which is the proprietor of all minerals beneath the land. There can be no dispute to the above proposition. For the purpose of this case what was relied by the appellant was that Mining Lease granted for survey No.11, Lease conditions clearly mention the area as forest area with the requirement to maintain the status of land as the forest land. The grant of Lease by the State is not disputed by the plaintiffs-respondents also. We, thus, are of the considered opinion that the name of the Forest Department recorded in survey No.11, deletion of which has been refused and the name of plaintiffs-respondents in the record in the manner and circumstances in which it came on the records of rights does not establish any claim of the plaintiffs-respondents and defendant has clearly made out the case for allowing counter-claim. The additional evidence brought on record by the State before this Court which has been accepted on record fully support the counter-claim of the defendant. We, thus, are of the view that counter-claim of the defendant-appellant deserves to be allowed and the judgment of courts below is to be modified to the above extent.