Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 – s.15 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. – s.87 – Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – s.114; Or. XLVII, r.1 – Proceedings of the revenue department dtd. 17.11.1960 whereunder a revision of survey and settlement took place – Respondent No.1 herein-Plaintiff filed application u/s.87, A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. seeking rectification of survey error stating that he owned the suit land, allowed – Land being forest land was declared as reserved forest by way of notification published u/s.15 of the A.P. Forest Act on 11.11.1971 – Trial court while granting title to the plaintiff declined the relief of injunction – High Court in appeal dismissed the suit – Review filed by the plaintiff – Contrary stands as regards the suit land being forest land were taken by State whereby Defendant No.1-District Collector (representing the Revenue Department), who had filed a common written statement along with the Defendant No.2-Forest Officer taking a stand that the suit property was a forest land which became part of a reserved forest area, constituted a committee and it was held that the suit property was to be excluded in favour of the plaintiff – Said decision was taken by the District Collector after the judgment of the First Appellate Court – High Court passed the impugned order in review petition in favour of the plaintiff despite him not proving his title over the suit property – Sustainability:

Held: Officials of the State expected to protect and preserve the forests in discharge of their public duties clearly abdicated their role – High Court placed reliance upon evidence produced after the decree, at the instance of a party which succeeded along with the contesting defendant, particularly in the light of the finding that the land was forest land which had become part of reserved forest – Evidence relied upon was inadmissible on the face of it and, therefore, void from its inception, rendered by an authority which had absolutely no jurisdiction at all – There was a distinct lack of jurisdiction – Land belonged to the Forest Department and therefore, Defendant No.1 District Collector (representing the Revenue Department) had absolutely no role in dealing with it in any manner – A subsequent event per se cannot form the basis of a review – Sub-clause (c) of Or.XLVII r.1 specifies that the important matter or evidence produced must have been available at the time when the decree was passed – This is a matter of rule – Further, proceeding under the A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F had no relevancy or connection with a proceeding under the A.P. Forest Act concluded on 11.11.1971 – Thereafter, without any jurisdiction, an order was passed u/s.87, A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F – High Court had earlier given a clear finding that even at the time of declaration under the A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F, these lands were not shown as private lands by the defendant – High Court which is expected to act within the statutory limitation went beyond and graciously gifted the forest land to a private person who could not prove his title – While disposing of the first appeal, the High Court exercised its power u/Or.XLI, r.22, CPC for partly reversing the trial court decree – Even otherwise, there were concurrent findings in so far as dismissal of the suit for injunction was concerned – High Court showed utmost interest and benevolence in allowing the review by setting aside the well merited judgment in the appeal – Impugned judgment set aside, judgment rendered in appeal restored. [Paras 51, 54-56, 59]

Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 – ss.15, 16 – Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. – s.87 – Notification was published u/s.15 declaring the land being forest land, as reserved forest – Suit filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction – Maintainability:

Held: Completion of the process as prescribed u/s.15 results in changing the character of land, including a forest land into a reserved forest – Thereafter, there shall be no question of raising any dispute on its character – Suit filed was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not challenged the proceedings u/s.15 which had become final and conclusive in view of the express declaration provided in s.16 – Rather, the plaintiff filed application for denotification before the Government which was rejected – Neither the State Government, which rejected the said application, nor the Forest Settlement Officer were made as party defendants in the suit, with the State arrayed as respondent represented by the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, at a later stage in the appeal – Though, the Forest Officer of the Forest Department may be an interested party, the authority who otherwise could answer was the Forest Settlement Officer – He was the one who concluded the proceedings – In any case, the said exercise was irrelevant as the Plaintiff could not prove his title nor does there lie any relevance to the action taken under the A.P. Land Revenue Act, 1317 F – Furthermore, there was no specific challenge to the concluded proceedings under the A. P. Forest Act – Plaintiff merely asked for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with possession. [Paras 13, 57]

Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 – Object – Discussed.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – s.114; Order XLVII Rule 1 – “after the exercise of due diligence”; “on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record” – Review – Scope – Code of Civil Procedure, 1859 – ss.376, 378 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1877 – s.623:

Held: The words “due diligence”, though one of fact, places onus heavily on the one who seeks a review – It has to be seen from the point of view of a reasonable and prudent man – Though an element of flexibility is given to any evidence or matter on its discovery, it has to be one which was not available to the court earlier – It could not have been produced despite due diligence, meaning thereby that it should have been available and, therefore, in existence at least at the time of passing the decree – Mistake or error apparent on the face of record would debar the court from acting as an appellate court in disguise, by indulging in a re-hearing – A decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor for review, but can only be corrected in appeal – Such a mistake or error should be self-evident on the face of record – The material produced, at this stage, should be of such pristine quality which, if taken into consideration, would have the logical effect of reversing the judgment – A subsequent event per se cannot form the basis of a review – Sub-clause (c) of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC 1908, clearly specifies that the important matter or evidence produced must have been available at the time when the decree was passed – This is a matter of rule – On a very rare occasion, an exception can be carved out – While exercising the said power, the court has to first check the evidentiary value of such discovery, including the circumstances under which it emanated, particularly when it inherently lacks jurisdiction or the evidence cannot be made admissible in law and therefore, is not relevant – In such a circumstance, there is no question of proceeding further in deciding the review application. [Paras 19-23]

Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19, 21, 48A and 51A – Forest – Constitutional Perspective:

Held: Article 48A imposes a clear mandate upon the State as a Directive Principle of State Policy, while Article 51A(g) correspondingly casts a duty upon a citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for fellow living creatures – These two provisions qua a forest ought to be understood in light of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as they represent the collective conscience of the Constitution – If the continued existence and protection of forests is in the interest of humanity, various species and nature, then there can be no other interpretation than to read the constitutional ethos into these provisions. [Para 25]

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Environment – Need for forests – Change in approach from Anthropocentric to Ecocentric – Natural rights theory – Economic Considerations – “Green Accounting” – Discussed.

Judicial Deprecation – Costs – Collusive affidavits filed – Despite a categorical finding of the suit property being a forest land, contrary stands taken by instrumentality of the State, but finally rectified by way of an affidavit before Supreme Court – However, in view of such different stands, the impugned order was passed in favour of the respondents despite him not proving his title over the suit property (forest land):

Held: Officials of the State expected to protect and preserve the forests in discharge of their public duties clearly abdicated their role – Cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed – Appellant-State free to enquire into the lapses committed by the officers in filing collusive affidavits before the competent court, and recover the same from the officers responsible for facilitating and filing incorrect affidavits. [Paras 54, 59]

Environment – Protection and preservation – Approach to be adopted by the courts – Constitution of India – Articles 48A, 51A, 21, 14 and 19:

Held: This Court has repeatedly reiterated the approach required to be adopted by the courts where the onus is on the violator to prove that there is no environmental degradation – There is a constitutional duty enjoined upon every court to protect and preserve the environment – Courts will have to apply the principle of parens patriae in light of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 48A, 51A, 21, 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India – Therefore, the burden of proof lies on a developer or industrialist and also on the State in a given case to prove that there is no such degradation. [Para 38]