aK committed a serious error in Interfering. with the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below when those-findl 9S'were based.on proper consideration and appreciation of evidence brought on’record, The learned counsel contended that Ext, D-1, being the true Copy of the:Gazette Notification dated 26-6-1937 Was rightly accepted by the trial court:as-well as the first appellate court and the High Court was not justified in et acceptin j the seme particularly when It had become a part of the record and no objection had been taken by the respondents ‘aso submitted that Ext. D-2, being the ~ at the time of recording the evidence; He: te, cores: In Hukkund Village, should ry statement of lands taken for Indavara have been accepted, He further submitted thi anumantieape, the Range Forest Officer supported the case of the:appellants on the basis of the record, Merely because the higher officer in the.department was not examined, his testimony could not be rejected. f 4. The trial court as well as the first appellate court, based on the evidence, recorded findings that the lands in-question’ were the part of reserved forest. We do-not find. any geod ground or a-yalid:reason Tor rejection of Ext. D-2 by the Hig Court. When tl 3 lands Were.Included‘n-teserve forest, the:entries'In the revenue cords. were. ofino Sonsesences E n-mere: saguvall chits:did-not confer any-tileon, thet itlands. This. apacty:thie: nue-Authoritles were not gpaipatca to.deal. with:the pray ry. which:was.thespart of. the-reserved forest, The first appellate court was-right in affleming the Judgment and decree of.the trial court. We find it difficult: t sastalied leimpu apee.ju igment and decree as far as these respondents — 1.5, Nirwane Gowda ad 3 eovindara In. these two appeals are concerned, In this view'these ap; als are entitled to: succeed, Accordingly, they are allowed, The: impugned judgment and decree passed by the High Court, so far as these respondents;-narvcly, Ls. Nirwane Gowds and & Govindaraj are concerned, are'sst aside and Hie. judgment and decree passed by the first appeliate court affirming the judgment and. decree of the trial Coos: in dismissing the suits. are. restored: lo costs; rae 3s A.Pu SRTC v, P. APPA’ RAG: eer a e. DK se and Diting Batbonily “DOR « gavel" Presumptive Tbke | : Conlutve Utle(2007) 15 Supreme Court Cases 744 State of Karnataka v. I.S. Nirvane Gowda (BEFORE SHIVARA} V.:RATIL AND:D:M; DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.) STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS .. Appellants; Versus LS. NIRVANE GOWDA AND OTHERS —.._ Respondents. Civil Appeals Nos. 7303-10 of 1996, decided on-July 15, 2003 Environment froteat “Forests —-Reserve Forests — Forest land — Title:t f Revenue Authorities to confer — Land included facts that saguvall chits were given by Tahsildar of Revenue Deptt..torespondents' and entries were made in revenue records, -held,,is;of.no:consequence arid: would-not confer title:to the land — Moreover, Revenue Authorities were not’ Property which formes ir Ser ir erred In interfering. Jetent to deal with the oh ec es sentappeal tlils'regard recorded by trial iv edure.Code; 1 +S, 100 Suaniterterence with court.as.well:as:the-first ter - ~ Concurrent findingsioftfact —‘Considetation’ (Para 4) Appeals allowed ~ R-Mj29274/S, oF nite , ORDER 1, These two appedlsiate'directed.a passed by the Pigh Cour ls Rene Nos jovindaral and Appu Fs Injunction ‘in respect of filed: fst. appeals:chall appellate court also’ passed-by the trial col appeals: before.the High'Court, The’ concurrent findings recorded by the trial'cot court. The appellants herein: filed SLPs-butt aismissed on account of not bringing his Las, On:reco counsel for the appellants. These two. appeals are fled't Govindaraj. 2, The respondents herein-claiming:title to'the'sult lands On the basis-ot saguvall chite ven by the Tahsilgar of the Revenue Department filed sult for declaration of title and:pecmanent injunction. The cefence of the appellants in the trlal:court was that thetands:In question: were:forest lands and the Revenue Department had no right to.orant saguyal/ cits to che respondents, Further, the competent authority, even ln respect of the fevenue land to grant saguvell chits, was the Deputy Commissioner and not the Tahsildar, On thebasis of the evidence the trial courtaccepted the case as. pleaded:by. the appellants.and concluded that the lands in question were the forest lands: he Revenue Department had no authority to grant saguvall chits to the respondents. The first appellate court on a detailed consideration:as'Is evident fromthe judgment, ‘Tooking to the provisions of the Forest Act and taking note of Ext. D-4, a copy of the Gazette Notification dated 26-6-1937 showing that the lands were included. Inthe State Reserve Forest, Ext. D-2, the statement of lands takenfor Indavara State Forest In Hukking Village andthe evidence of forest officer Mr g.N. Hanumanthanpa, the Range Forest Officer attached to the DFO, Chickmagafir, appeals. The High Court inthe second aphealssreversed the concurrent findings, finding fault with the judgments of the courts Below in accepting Ext. 0-1, gazette notification aforementioned, on the graund that the original gazette was no produced. the High Court algo took the view that the evidence.of the Range orest Officer, namely, Hanumanthappa was of not much consequence and that w higher officer of the department like the Divisional Forest Officer should have been examined. The High Court raised a statutory presumption based on the entries made in the revenue'records. fn this view the High Court allowed the appeals filed by the respondents herein 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court platens