Court rules that transfer of forest settlement land without state sanction is void and possession does not confer legal title
In a significant judgment, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice J.C. Doshi, dismissed the second appeal in the case of Rambhai Madhubhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat, reinforcing the legal stance that forest settlement land cannot be transferred without the prior sanction of the State Government. The decision dated January 23, 2026, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the plaintiff's suit seeking protection from dispossession.
The case revolved around a disputed piece of land in the Jasadhar range of Gir Reserve Forest, which had been initially allotted to Ram Devath under a forest settlement. After his death, the plaintiff, Rambhai Madhubhai Rajput, claimed possession through an agreement to sell executed by Devath's purported heirs in 1965, which was registered with the Sub Registrar's Office. The plaintiff argued for protection under the doctrine of part performance, asserting that his possessory rights were valid despite the absence of title.
The High Court emphasized the impermissibility of transferring forest settlement land without the State Government's sanction, as prescribed under Sections 23 and 24 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Justice Doshi underscored that possession under such an agreement does not confer any legal rights or title, and the plaintiff cannot claim protection against the State Government, which holds ownership of the land.
Furthermore, the court clarified that the doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not establish ownership rights against third parties, such as the State Government. The judgment also highlighted that the disputed land is part of a reserve forest and wildlife sanctuary, where any alienation or transfer without proper authority is barred under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Justice Doshi further noted that the plaintiff's claim for protection under the principle of "due process of law" was unfounded, as mere possession without legal title cannot be protected against the legal owner. The court concluded that the second appeal was essentially a "third trial on facts" without any substantial question of law, leading to its dismissal.
The ruling reiterates the stringent legal framework governing forest land and wildlife sanctuaries in India, emphasizing the need for state authorization in any transaction involving such lands.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of land received under settlement without State Government's sanction is invalid. Possession under such agreement does not confer title, and plaintiff cannot claim protection under the doctrine of part performance or "due process of law" without legal ownership.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Forest Act, 1927 Sections 23, 24; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 53A; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 100
Rambhai Madhubhai Rajput v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2843127
