JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---This is an appeal against the judgment and Decree dated 21st March, 1997 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 49/93/A by Civil Judge, S.D., Quepem. By the impugned decree, the trial Court has dismissed the suit being not maintainable in view of provisions contained in the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter called the said Act). 2.The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the appellants who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court have filed the said suit for declaration and injunction. The relief of declaration relates to a piece of land admeasuring an area of 2300 sq. mts. comprised under Survey No. 92/1. The claim of the appellants is that the said piece of land forms part and parcel of the property of the plaintiffs and the same is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and therefore the survey authorities are to be directed to exclude the same from the property bearing Survey No. 92/1 and to allot a separate survey number for the said piece of land. The relief of mandatory injunction relates to directions to the respondents who are the defendants in the suit to remove the barbed wire fencing erected enclosing the said piece of land of the property bearing Survey No. 92/1 and another piece of land admeasuring an area of 1251 sq.m. of the property bearing Survey No. 90/1; as also for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents and their agents from interfering in the area so enclosed from the property bearing Survey No. 92/1 as well as from the property bearing Survey No. 90/1. 3.On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the entire area comprised under Survey No. 92 which includes Sub-Division No. 1 of Survey No. 92 of the village of Bhati had been notified under section 20 of the said Act as the reserved forest area. In that regard the respondents have referred to a Notification No. 46/6/84 FOR dated 14th March, 1991 published in the Official Gazette (Supplement) Sr. III No. 35 dated 26th November, 1992. In that regard the respondents have referred to a Notification No. 46/6/84 FOR dated 14th March, 1991 published in the Official Gazette (Supplement) Sr. III No. 35 dated 26th November, 1992. It is the case of the respondents that pursuant to the said Notification issued in terms of section 20 of the said Act declaring the said area as reserved forest area, the respondents are in exclusive possession thereof and in terms of the provisions of the said Act, Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant the relief prayed for in respect of any part of the reserved forest area. 4.The trial Court framed four issues which included the following issue as the Issue No. 4:- "Whether the defendants prove that the whole property surveyed under No. 92/1 is a reserved forest and is in their exclusive possession." Considering the said issue to be related to the maintainability of the suit itself, the trial Court proceeded to decide the same as preliminary issue and by the impugned judgment and decree placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (State of U.P. v. Dy. Director, Consolidation others)1, reported in 1996(5) Supreme, 446 the trial Court held that the appellants cannot approach the Civil Court for seeking the relief prayed for in the suit and while answering the Issue No. 4 in the affirmative, dismissed the suit. 5.The impugned judgment and decree is sought to be challenged mainly on two grounds: one that Notification under section 20 of the said Act would not oust the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain the suit of the nature filed by the appellants and to grant the relief prayed for therein and secondly, in any case the trial Court could not have dismissed the entire suit which related to the two plots, one bearing Survey No. 92/1 and the other bearing Survey No. 90/1 and that the claim of the respondents regarding notification under section 20 of the said Act was limited to the area comprised under Survey No. 92 and its sub-divisions and did not relate to the area falling within the property bearing Survey No. 90/1 and therefore at least the suit as far as it relates to the area comprised under the Survey No. 90/1 could not have been dismissed. 6.On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents that in terms of the provisions contained in the said Act and judgment of the Apex Court referred to by the trial Court in its judgment, no grievance can be made regarding dismissal of the suit as regards the property bearing Survey No. 92/1 is concerned and as regards the property bearing Survey No. 90/1 no fault can be found with the impugned judgment under the provisions of law contained in section 114 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968 and therefore the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to grant the relief prayed for even in relation to the said area comprised under Survey No. 90/1. 7.Upon hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, the points for determination which arise in the present appeal are :- (i) Whether in view of the Notification under section 20 of the said Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to grant the relief prayed for in relation to the area comprised under Survey No. 92/1 ? and (ii) Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the entire suit including the suit relating to plot bearing Survey No. 90/1 by referring to the Notification under section 20 which is admittedly in relation to the plot bearing Survey No. 92/1. 8.The fact that the respondents under Notification dated 14th March, 1991 issued in terms of the provisions contained in the said Act had declared the forest constituted by Survey No. 92/1 as the reserved forest area is a matter of record. It is also not in dispute that the entire area bearing Survey No. 92 situated in the village of Bhati in the taluka of Sanguem is shown in the Record of Rights in favour of the Forest Department of the Government of Goa. Factually, therefore, it is evident that the area comprised under Survey No. 92/1 in respect of which the appellants had sought a declaration of ownership right and exclusion of the said area from the property bearing Survey No. 92/1 and allotment of separate survey number thereto forms part of the reserved forest area as declared under the said Notification issued under the said Act. It is also not in dispute that the said Notification was issued much prior to the filing of the suit. It is also not in dispute that the said Notification was issued much prior to the filing of the suit. Bearing in mind these factual aspects of the case as far as it relates to Survey No. 92/1 and perusal of the provisions of the said Act along with the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Dy. Director, Consolidation others (supra), it is well established that the said Act is a complete Code in itself and contains detail procedure to be followed by the Government before and while notifying any area as the reserved forest area. The judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Dy. Director, Consolidation others (supra) clearly holds that once a notification under section 20 of the said Act declaring a land as the reserved forest area is published, then all the rights in the said land claimed by any person comes to an end and are no longer available to him. Indeed, the trial Court has extensively quoted in the impugned judgment the most relevant portion of the said judgment of the Apex Court and which is directly applicable to the matter in issue. The Apex Court in the said judgment has held that in terms of section 11(1) of the said Act, in the case of a claim to a right in or over any land other than a right of way or right of pasture, or a right to forest produce or water course, the Forest Settlement Officer shall pass an order admitting or rejecting the same in whole or in part and decision of the Forest Officer shall be subject to appeal under section 17 and further subject to a revision under section 18(4) of the said Act, and further that the Forest Settlement Officer is clothed with the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of the inquiry regarding objections filed by the parties pursuant to the proclamation issued under section 7 of the said Act. Considering the various provisions of the said Act, the Apex Court has held that the said Act is a complete Code by itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring and notifying a reserved forest area. Considering the various provisions of the said Act, the Apex Court has held that the said Act is a complete Code by itself and contains elaborate procedure for declaring and notifying a reserved forest area. In the case in hand, once it is not disputed that the area covered by the Survey No. 92 which includes its Sub-Division No. 1 forms part of the said notification issued under section 20 of the said Act, applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision, no fault can be found with the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit as far as it relates to the said area covered under Survey No. 92/1. 9.As regards the plot bearing Survey No. 90/1, it was never the case of the respondents that the same formed part of the reserved forest area under the said notification dated 14th March, 1991. In fact, the written statement filed by the respondents in the said suit nowhere refers to any such claim on the part of the respondents. Merely because an area covered by Survey No. 92/1 forms part of the reserved forest area under the said Notification, that by itself cannot be justification to reject and dismiss the suit in relation to Survey No. 90/1. Indeed, as rightly submitted by learned Advocate for the appellants, none of the issues framed by the trial Court specifically refers to the property bearing Survey No. 90/1 though one of the issues refers to letter 'B' without disclosing whether the said letter refers to area covered by the land bearing Survey No. 90/1 or 92/1. That apart, the Issue No. 4 in relation to which the entire judgment and decree has been passed specifically refers to Survey No. 92/1 and in no way relates to the area covered by Survey No. 90/1. In this regard, the dismissal of the suit in relation to the property bearing Survey No. 92/1 cannot be related to dismissal of the suit in relation to Survey No. 90/1. In this regard, the dismissal of the suit in relation to the property bearing Survey No. 92/1 cannot be related to dismissal of the suit in relation to Survey No. 90/1. 10.The contention of learned Government Advocate that no fault can be found with the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the entire suit including the property bearing Survey No. 90/1 and reliance in that regard to section 114 of the Land Revenue Code is devoid of substance since neither the respondents have raised any such plea before the trial Court in the written statement already filed nor there has been any issue framed nor there is any decision in that regard by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and decree. It is too premature at this stage for this Court to decide the matter on the ground which is sought to be raised by the respondents to justify the dismissal of the suit in relation to the property bearing Survey No. 90/1. 11.In the circumstances, it is to be held that though the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit as far as it relates to Survey No. 92/1, the impugned judgment and decree as far as it relates to property bearing Survey No. 90/1 cannot be sustained and the matter relating thereto needs to be considered afresh by the trial Court and for that purpose the matter needs to be remanded to the trial Court. 12.It is to be noted that the issues framed by the trial Court in the present case do not appear to have been correctly framed. Apparently, the same relates merely to the reliefs prayed for by the parties. In this regard the trial Court shall endeavour to refer to Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to frame proper issues in the matter before proceeding with the suit. It is therefore also necessary to quash all the issues framed in the said suit and to direct the trial Court to reframe appropriate issues based on the pleadings and other materials in support thereto already placed on record by the parties, bearing in mind the provisions contained in Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13.In the result, the appeal partly succeeds. 13.In the result, the appeal partly succeeds. The impugned judgment and decree so far as it relates to Survey No. 90/1 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of law as far as it relates to the property bearing Survey No. 90/1 after framing proper issues in the suit. As far as Survey No. 92/1 is concerned, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Appeal partly allowed. *****