Revenue Record Is Not A Document Of Title
Case: Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag V. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj (Dead) Thr. Lrs.
Coram: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 7017 Of 2009
Court Observation: “There is no other requirement under Section 4 of the Forest Act. It is only Section 6 of the Forest Act which needs to specify the situation and limits of the proposed forest. In terms of such clause (a) of Section 6 of the Forest Act, the details of khasra numbers which were part of 162 acres find mention in the proclamation so published,”
“A reading of Section 20 of the Forest Act does not show that for a reserved forest, there is a requirement of publication of notification but no time limit is prescribed for publication of such notification under Section 20. Therefore, even if notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act has not been issued, by virtue of Section 5 of the Forest Act, there is a prohibition against acquisition of any right over the land comprised in such notification except by way of a contract executed in writing by or on behalf of the Government. Since no such written contract was executed by or on behalf of the State or on behalf of the person in whom such right was vested, therefore, the Gaon Sabha was not competent to grant a lease in favour of the appellant.”
[doc id=11093]
Previous Posts
Section 28 Contract Act – Clause Barring Payment Of Interest Not Hit: Supreme Court
Keywords
Revenue Record, Document Of Title, Revenue Record in India
