State Of Goa vs Narayan V.

Gaonkar

1. A Civil Suit NO. 64 of 1995 was filed by Shri Narayan V. Gaonkar, Shri Shivram V.
Gaonkar and Shri Rama S.F. Dessai in the Court of Civil Judge praying to direct the
survey authorities to delete the name of the “Forest Department” from the entry No.
11/1 of the village sulcorna from the “”Name of the Occupant” column of survey form
No I & XIV and to declare the plaintiffs as the exclusive owner of the property
bearing survey No. 11/1 known as” CONDA MALL” or “CARIA MALL”. There
were four defendants in the case which are; the Secretary of forest department;
Government of Goa, the collector of sub division, Goa, The Survey and Settlement
officer, surveys of land records, panji, Goa and the chief secretary, Government of
Goa. A common written statement was filed by the defendants claiming that the entire
suit property is in possession and belongs to the forest department and the name of
forest department has been rightly included in the occupant’s column. The plaintiff
doesn’t have any right over the property.
2. The learned Civil Judge framed two issues;
 Whether the plaintiff prove that they are owners in possession of the suit
property?
 Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs name have been wrongfully
recorded as the co-occupant in the survey and as such their name may be deleted
from the occupant’s column?
3. The learned Civil judge while addressing the first issue held that the plaintiffs failed to
prove that they are the owners of the suit property. However, the possession of the
plaintiffs was upheld. The issue No. 2 was answered against the defendants.
4. A first appeal was filed by the defendants in the High Court praying for quashing the
judgement of the Civil court and setting it aside. It was also prayed to delete the name of
the respondents in occupant’s column also hold that the respondents are not in the
possession of the suit land. The High Court rejected the appeal of the appellants while
observing that observing that trial court has rightly rejected the plaintiffs’ prayer for title
and also dismissed the appellants counter claim that they are owner of the property. The
High court upheld the judgement of the learned civil judge. However, the petitioner is
directed to produce the relevant records to show that suit property is forest land.
5. Aggrieved from the judgement, the appeal has been filed by the State of Goa. The
appellants filed an affidavit bringing on record form No. I to XIV, the notification dated
11.01.1951 published in the government gazette. A mining lease granted by government
of Goa has also been brought on record. The appellant in support of the appeal submits
that the trail court rejected the claim of plaintiff and plaintiff didn’t prefer any appeal, the
findings that they are not owner becomes final and no title can be claimed.
6. The suit filed by the plaintiff had been rejected by the trail court and no appeal have been
preferred by the plaintiff against the judgement has become final.

MATTER IN ISSUE
 Whether the counter-claim filed by the appellant had rightly been rejected by the courts?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

 The appellants submitted that according to the Goa, Daman and Diu land revenue Code,
when the land survey was made with regard to the survey No. 11, name of the forest
department was only recorded. When the complaint was withdrawn by the plaintiff, there
was no occasion of their names to be recorded with the forest department.
 The defendants contended that that the names of plaintiffs’ ancestors were recorded in
matriz document No.4, which clearly proves that it was the plaintiffs’ forefathers, who
were owners of the suit property. Also complaint was filed by one of the plaintiffs dated
07.08.1975, which was the complaint with regard to adjoining land of the plaintiffs and
not with regard to suit land.

JUDGEMENT
1. The court observed that when the Vishnu shivram withdrawn his claim for the deletion of
name of the forest department, we fail to comprehend that as to how withdrawal of
complaint, their names can be added along with the forest department. Thus, the
recording of names of the plaintiff along with forest department was illegal as per rule 6
of Rules, 1969. From the additional evidences brought on record, it is clear in the record
that, it was only the forest department which was mentioned in the survey the addition of
the name of Vishnu Shivaram Gaonkar and two others was enacted to consolidate and
amend the Law relating to Land and Land Revenue in the Union of territory of Goa,
Daman and Diu.
2. The matriz document which is alleged to be the basis of right of plaintiff is not document
of title. The Bombay High court in Fabrica da Igreja de N.s. de Milagres vs. Union of
India and others, the court held that the matriz document is neither an instrument of title
nor a source of possession.
3. The Court reiterated on the judgement of Bombay high court in Smt. Maria Teresa
Philomena D’Rocha Pegado vs. State of Goa and others, that the state is the proprietor of
all the minerals beneath the land and there is no dispute to this proposition. The grant of
lease by the state is also not disputed by the plaintiff also.
4. The court observed that the additional evidences brought by state clearly support the
counter claim of the defendant, The appeal of the appellant is allowed and the counter
claim filed by the defendants is allowed. The name of plaintiffs-respondents be deleted
from the occupant’s column in survey No.11/1 Sulcorna Village of Quepem Taluka,
District Goa. Parties shall bear their own cost.

REFERENCES
 https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/state-of-goa-versus-narayan
gaonkar-ors
 STATE OF GOA v. NARAYAN V. GAONKAR [2020] INSC 259 (4 March 2020)