Coming down heavily on Telangana officials for "abdicating" their duty to protect forest land, the Supreme Court on Thursday not only set aside the high court verdict declaring 106.34 acre forest land in Warangal district as private but criticised the HC for “graciously gifting” it to a private person who could not prove his title.
The top court also said there is a crying need for a change in the approach towards forests.
"The need of the hour is to transform from an anthropocentric (believing humans are most important) approach to eco-centric approach which will encompass a wider perspective in the interest of the environment.
“A right to enjoy cannot be restricted to any specific group, and so also to human beings. The time has come for mankind to live sustainably and respect the rights of rivers, lakes, beaches, estuaries, ridges, trees, mountains, seas and air. It is imperative to do so as there is always a constant threat to forests due to the ever increasing population,” it observed. The verdict came while allowing the appeal of the Telangana government against the high court’s judgement on a review plea of legal representatives of a man named Mohd Abdul Qasim, who has died.
The high court had reversed its own findings while deciding the review plea and held that the parcel of land in question was not forest land and declared the legal representatives of the late Qasim as owners.
“We have already recorded the facts in detail. It is a classic case where the officials of the state (Telangana) who are expected to protect and preserve the forests in discharge of their public duties clearly abdicated their role.
“We are at a loss to understand as to how the High Court could interfere by placing 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 is forest land which has become part of reserved forest,” said the bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and S V N Bhatti.
Government officials fought in the trial court and the high court to buttress the state’s point that the land in question was forest land. However, few officials later abdicated their duties leading to the impugned judgment of the high court that too in the review jurisdiction, the apex court said.
Setting aside the high court verdict, Justice Sundresh, in the 60-page judgement, held it did not stand legal scrutiny “as it is ridden with both factual and legal errors”.
The top court also dealt in detail with the limited jurisdiction of courts while entertaining review pleas, saying evidence cannot be re-appreciated and only the errors apparent on the face of records can be rectified under it.
“The High Court on the earlier occasion had given a clear finding that even at the time of declaration under the AP Land Revenue Act, these lands were not shown as private lands by the defendant, among other factual findings.
“It is indeed very strange that the 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...,” the top court said. The judgement said the high court showed “utmost interest and benevolence” in allowing the review plea by setting aside the “well merited judgment in the appeal” by replacing its views in all material aspects. It also imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh each on the state government and other parties including the respondents and ordered that the monies be paid to the National Legal Services Authority within a period of two months, the top court said.
The apex court said in the judgement that the state government was free to inquire into the lapses committed by the officers in filing collusive affidavits before the competent court, and recover the same from those officers who are responsible for facilitating and filing incorrect affidavits in the ongoing proceedings.
Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.
