Agreement-To-Sell Confers No Rights Over Government Forest Land: Gujarat High Court Dismisses 22-Year-Old Appeal
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice J. C. Doshi dismissed a second appeal and declined to protect possession claimed over land falling within a reserved forest and wildlife sanctuary, holding that an agreement to sell relating to Government forest land does not create any right, title, or interest enforceable against the State. The dispute arose from a plaintiff’s claim that he was put in possession of settlement land under a registered agreement to sell executed by persons asserting heirship of the original settler, and his suit seeking an injunction against dispossession and invalidation of a forest department order. Upholding concurrent findings that no valid transferable right existed without Government sanction, the Court affirmed dismissal of the suit and discontinued interim protection.
The claimant instituted a civil suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the State authorities from dispossessing him without due process of law and subsequently amended the plaint to challenge an order of the Forest Department resuming the land. The State contested the suit, asserting that the land formed part of a reserved forest and wildlife sanctuary, that the settler held only limited settlement rights, and that no sanction had ever been granted for transfer.
The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that no legal right or interest had accrued in favour of the claimant. The first appellate court affirmed the dismissal. The matter then reached the High Court in second appeal, where multiple substantial questions of law were framed relating to validity of transfer, applicability of part performance, requirement of State sanction, and the effect of statutory forest restrictions.
The Court began by recording undisputed foundational facts, noting that “the disputed land fall within reserve forest as well as wildlife sanctuary” and that it had been allotted “under settlement carried out by Settlement Officer on the terms and conditions being leasehold land.” The Court observed that “terms and conditions of settlement does not provide for transfer of leasehold right.”
On the agreement relied upon by the claimant, the Court noted that “Exh.63 is not executed by deceased Ram Devath” and further recorded that the persons who executed it “failed to be established as legal heirs of deceased Ram Devath.” The Court stated that “even prima facie Exh.63 document claimed to be agreement to sell fails to create legal value in the eye of law.”
While addressing the plea of settled possession, the Court observed that “an agreement to sell does not create any right, title or interest in favour of intending buyers” and that protection under part performance “does not cerate title of the transferee in the property.” It further recorded that “such a right to protect possession against the proposed vendor cannot be pressed into service against a third party.”
On statutory restrictions, the Court observed that “no right of any description shall be acquired in or over a reserved forest except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government.” It further stated that “right shall not be alienated without sanction of the State Government.”
With respect to due process, the Court recorded that “due process of law is satisfied the moment rights of the parties are adjudicated by a competent Court.” It concluded that “claim made by the plaintiff that he may not be dispossessed without due process of law is totally meritless, baseless and groundless.”
The Court directed that “substantial question of law No.1 is answered by holding that the plaintiff has no right to be heard, as he has no right, title, or interest in the disputed land.” It was further recorded that the claim for protection against dispossession could not survive when no legally enforceable right was established.
The Court directed that “the State Government never accorded any sanction for transfer of occupancy rights,” and that this finding governed the determination of “substantial question of law No.2” as well as “substantial question of law No.3.”
“Since transfer of settlement land is impermissible under the provisions of the Forest Act,” substantial question of law No.4 is answered accordingly. Penalty cannot regularize alienation of settlement land,” and on the same reasoning “substantial question of law No.6” stood answered. With regard to the document relied upon by the plaintiff, “Exhibit 63 has no legal value in the eyes of law.”
“Second Appeal sans merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands discontinued,” and that “Record and Proceedings, if any, be send back to learned Trial court concerned.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. M. B. Parikh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Vyas, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: Rambhai Madhubhai Rajput (Deceased) Through Heirs v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 78 of 2004
Bench: Justice J. C. Doshi
