Agreement To Sell Doesn't Create Rights Over Reserved Forest Land: Gujarat High Court Dismisses 22-Year-Old Appeal

The Gujarat High Court has held that an agreement to sell in respect of land forming part of Government forest land does not create any right, title, or interest, and that possession claimed on the basis of such an agreement cannot be protected against the State.Justice J. C. Doshi dismissed a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure back in 2004, affirming the concurrent findings of the courts below.The plaintiff claimed possession over land situated in the Jasadhar range of the Gir Forest, on the basis of a registered agreement to sell dated 30 March 1965. The land had been granted to an original settler as leasehold land under forest settlement.Furthermore, the plaintiff contended that the agreement to sell was executed by persons claiming to be the heirs of the original settler, and that possession of the land was handed over pursuant to the agreement. Apprehending dispossession by the Forest Department, the plaintiff instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction. The plaint was subsequently amended to challenge an order passed by the Forest Department resuming the land.However, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. The dismissal was confirmed by the first appellate court. The plaintiff thereafter approached the High Court in a second appeal.The High Court considered whether the plaintiff, on the basis of an agreement to sell relating to forest settlement land, could claim any right or seek protection of possession against the State. The Court also examined whether Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could be invoked in such circumstances and whether any substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal.The High Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish any legally enforceable right in respect of the land in question. On examining the record, the Court noted that the land formed part of Government forest land and that the plaintiff's claim was founded on an agreement to sell dated 30 March 1965.The Court observed that no transfer of right had taken place in favour of the plaintiff and that the agreement to sell did not create any right, title, or interest in the land. In this context, the Court adverted to the legal position governing Government land and observed:“Thus, no right except right of succession or under grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of Government … can be claimed in respect of Government land.”Applying the above principle, the Court held that since the plaintiff was unable to establish any right flowing from succession or from a grant or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government, no protection of possession could be claimed. Moreover, the Court rejected the reliance placed on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, observing that the provision does not confer title and cannot be invoked against the State.The Court further noted that the land formed part of a reserved forest and wildlife sanctuary and that the statutory provisions governing forest land prohibited acquisition or transfer of rights without the sanction of the State Government. It held that payment of penalty or any subsequent action could not validate an otherwise impermissible transaction.On the contention that the plaintiff could not be dispossessed without due process of law, the Court held that once the claim had been adjudicated upon and rejected by the competent courts, the requirement of due process stood satisfied.Consequently, finding that no substantial question of law arose from the concurrent findings of the courts below, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and discontinued any interim reliefs granted earlier.Case title: RAMBHAI MADHUBHAI RAJPUT SINCE DECD.THRO HIS HEIRS & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 78 of 2004Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 30

Agreement To Sell Doesn't Create Rights Over Reserved Forest Land: Gujarat High Court Dismisses 22-Year-Old Appeal

Preet Luthra

Tags