In Brief
The respondent inherited property that was forfeited to the government in 1892 for non-payment of revenue but continued in possession. In 2000, a rule was amended allowing restoration of forfeited land if the owner remained in possession. The respondent applied for restoration, but the government had transferred the land to the Forest Department in 1994. The Supreme Court upheld restoration, holding that the Forest Department transfer was mere custodianship while the land remained classified as revenue land. Continuous possession and timely application entitled the respondent to restoration despite the transfer.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.