Case Note & Summary
The appellants, original plaintiffs, filed Special Civil Suit No.18/1991/A in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bicholim, seeking a declaration that notices dated 13.12.1989 and 18.12.1989 issued by the Forest Department demanding compounding fees for alleged offences under the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 were unjust and illegal, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing those notices. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 30.04.2001, inter alia on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 28 of the Act. The appellants appealed to the High Court. The appeal was admitted on 18.08.2005 on a substantial question of law: whether the suit was barred by Section 28 of the Act. The appellants sought to frame an additional substantial question of law regarding the applicability of the Act under Section 30, but the court held it was subsumed in the existing question. The High Court, per M.S. Sonak, J., allowed the appeal, holding that the suit was not barred by Section 28 because the bar applies only to acts done in good faith under the Act, not to the question of whether the Act applies at all. The court noted that under Section 30, the Act applies to private lands only if notified, and there was no such notification. Therefore, the proceedings under Section 8 were vitiated, and the notices were illegal. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favor of the appellants.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Bar of Suit - Section 28 of Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 - Suit challenging notices for compounding fees under the Act is not barred by Section 28 if the Act itself is not applicable to the trees in question - The bar under Section 28 applies only to acts done in good faith under the Act, not to the very applicability of the Act - Held that the suit was maintainable (Paras 2-4, 7-8). B) Tree Preservation - Applicability of Act - Section 30 of Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 - The Act applies to private lands only if notified under Section 30 - In absence of notification, proceedings under Section 8 for cutting trees on private land are vitiated - Held that the notices were illegal as the Act was not made applicable to the appellants' land (Paras 3-5, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit challenging notices dated 13.12.1989 and 18.12.1989 demanding compounding fees was barred by Section 28 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984, and whether proceedings under Section 8 of the Act were vitiated in view of Section 30 of the Act.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 30.04.2001 set aside. Suit decreed in favor of the appellants. Notices dated 13.12.1989 and 18.12.1989 declared illegal and injunction granted against enforcement.
Law Points
- Section 28 of the Goa
- Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act
- 1984 does not bar a civil suit challenging notices under the Act if the Act itself is not applicable
- Section 30 of the Act provides for application by notification to private lands
- Section 8 of the Act creates offence for cutting trees without permission
