Divisional Forest Officer, Himachal Pradesh & Anr. v. Suri Daut & Ors.

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, HIMACHAL PRADESH & A ANR. _v._ SURI DAUT & ORS. _October_ 30, 1967 ##### [J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.J _llimaclwl_ _Pradesh_ _Abolition_ _of_ _Big_ _Landed_ _Estates_ _&_ _Lclid_ _Reforms_ _Acl,_ 1953, s. l _l-Exprenion_ _.. right,_ _title_ _and_ _interest_ _of_ _the /and-on't1t'r_ _in_ _the_ _land"-Jj_ _includes trtes_ _on_ _1he_ _land,_ Upan an application filed by a cultivating tenant M under s. 11 of lhe Himachal Pradesh Aholition of Big LaLded Estates and Land Re. fonns Act. 1953, the Compensation Officer held that as such tenant he \\'a~ entitled to acquire .. the right, titl~ and interest" of the owner of th<' land in question. After payment by the tenant of a specified amount of compensation. a ccnificate of ownership was ~anted to him and, after his death, the land v-.·as mutated in favour of his wife and daughter. rcspondcncs in this appc;1f. The respondents applied to the Divisional Forest Officer for permis'ion to sell the trees of their land and although that Officer granted permission for the sale, he failed to give the necessary orders for felling the trees and taking out the converted timber from the land .. The respondents filed a petition nnder Art. 226 of the Constituti<>n for the issue of a writ of _mandamus_ directing the Divisional Forest Oftic.:r to issue -Pr get issued the necessary pormission for felling lhe trees and moving' the timber. The Judicial Commis..ioner, following _Vijay_ _K11mcri_ _T/Jalcur_ v. _H.P._ _Administration._ A.LR. 1961 H.P. 32. held that the appcl· lanls were cstoppcd from conlt,ding that the respondents harl nn ;ntcresl in the trees and allowed the petition. In appeal to the Supreme Court it wa5 contended on behalf ot the appellants that under s. 11 of the Act the trees did not vest in the de :eased tenant but only the 'land'. as deflnd in s. 2(S) of tbe Act, and that the Compensation Officer was not competent to grant and, in fact, did not grant proprietary rights in the trees to the deceased tenant. HELD : dismissing the appeal : Under sub-s. ( 6) of s. 11, the tenant becomes the owner of the land compri90d in the tenancy on and from the dale of grant of the certificate, and it is expressly provided that the right, title and interest of the landowner in the said land shall detenninc. In the context the word •o\\oncr' is very comprehensive and implies that all rights, title ana interest of the Iand-0wner passed to the tenant. [I 16E-F] Furt1"'rmore, the expression "right, title and interest of the lando\\o·ncr in the land" is wide enough to include trees standing on the land. Under s. 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless a different intention is expressed or implied, transkr of land would include trees standing on it; and s. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Act should be construed in the same manner. 1115 El _Achhru_ _Mal_ v. _Mmda_ _Bakhsh,_ ( 1924) _5_ Lah. 385 and _Nasih_ Si11~h v. _Amiri_ _Chand,_ A.l.R. 1942 Lah. 152, distinguished. _K11j11_ _Mal_ v. _Salig_ _Ram,_ [1919] ·Punj. Rec. 237, referred to. ### c D E F G JI DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER _V._ DAUT _(Sikri,_ J.) 113 - A Civ1L APPELLATE JURISQJCTION: Civil Appeal No. 128 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 12, 1963 of the Judicial Commissioner's court, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Writ Petition No. 19 of 1963. B _Vikram Chand Mahajan_ and _R._ _N._ _Sachthey,_ for the appel lants. _Rameslnvai: Nath_ and _Mahinder Narain,_ for respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ### c D E F G H Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, is directed againsr-his-jmigment allowing a petition filed by the respondents and issuing a writ of _mandamus_ directing the Divisional For~st Officer, Sarahan Forest Division, and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh -hereinafter referred to as the appellants-to issue or get issued the necessary permission for felling the trees and the transit pass, in respect of certain _khasra_ numbers. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. Land measuring 27 _big/111s_ and 16 _biswas_ comprised ir. _khasra_ Nos. 452/1, 453, 453/1, 40, 100 and 440 and situated in village Kadiali, Tehsil Thcog, District Mahasu, belonged to Government and was under the tenancy of Moti Ram. He filed an application under s. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953-hereinafter referred to as the Act-and was granted proprietary rights in the land· by the Compensation Officer by order dated August 30, 1957. Provi sional compensation was assessed at Rs. 62.56 nP. The Compensation Officer held that "as the applicant is a cultivating tenant over the aforesaid land he is entitled to acquire right, tit!\) and interest of the said land-owner on payment of Rs. 62.56 as compensation which should be deposited." On September 9, 1957, a certificate of ownership was granted to Moti Ram on his depositing Rs. 62.56. Moti Ram died and the land was mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Besroo and his daughter Smt. Rupi. The respondents applied for pennission to S( '.I the trees on their land, and the Divis.ional Forest Officer by order dated July 18, 1958, permitted them to sell the trees from their 1.and on certain condi tions. On November 15, 1958, the respondents deposited Rs. 1"26;7 .13 nP as government fee, but the Divisional Forest Officer failed to give clear orders for felling the trees and taking out the converted timber from the said land. The Chief Conservator Officer, by letter dated July 12, _1961,_ informed the respon dents that the matter was being inquired from the Conservator of 114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1968) 2 S.C.R. Forests, Simla Circle. Thereupon, not bearing anything further, the respondents filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It was urged before the Judicial Commissioner, on behalf of lhe Divisional Forest Officer that the respondents had no interest in the trees standing on their land as. the trees were not 'land' a~ defined in s. 2 ( 5) of the Act, and that the Compensation Officer was not competent to grant, and, in fact, did not grant proprietary rights in the trees to the deceased Moti Ram. The learned Judicial Commissioner, following _Vijay Kumari Thakur_ v. _H._ _P._ _Administration(_ [1 ] ) held that the appellants were estopped from contending that the respondents bad no interest in the trees. He further held that the respondents were granted pennission to sell the trees standing on their land and they ltad, in fact, entered into an agreement to sell to a third party. and they had depositt:d Rs. 1267.13 nP and had thus acted to their detriment. As statec already, the learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the petition and issued a writ of _mandamus._ Wilh certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner the appellants have filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that under s. 11 o[ the Act the trees did not vest in the deceased \1oti Ram. He says that what vested under s. 11 of 1he Act was land, and 'land' is defined in s. 2 ( 5) as follows : "S. 2 ( 5) .-'Land' means land which is not occupieo a~ the site of any building in a town or village and is occui>ied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture, and includes ( a) the siles of buildings and other stt;ictures on such land; ( b) orchards; (c) ghasnies;" He relies on a number of decisions of the Punjab Chief 'Court and the Lahore High Court interpreting a similar definition existing in the Punjab Alienation of Land Act (XIII of 1900). In our opinion those cases are distinguishable inasmuch as they deal with the question whether trees could be sold or assigned under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act without infringing the prohibitions contained in that Act forbidding sale of land by agriclllturists in favour of non-agriculturists. For instance, in _Achlrru_ _Mal·v._ _Maula Bakhslz(2),_ under" deed of sale the vendee was entitled to cut and remove the trees within a period of ten years. and the plaintiff brought a suit asking for a perpetual injunction (1) A.l.R. 1961 H.P. 32. (2) (1924) _5_ Lah. 385. ### A • B ## c D E F G H # A B #### c D E F G H DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER l'. DAUT _(Sikri, ]._ ) 115 to issue to the defendants-respondents to restrain them from preventing him from cutting and removing c~rtain trees from the land belonging to the defendants-respondents. The lower courts held that the trees growing on agricultural land were "land'' within ~he meaning of the expression as defined ins. 2(3) of the Pun1ab Alienation of Land Act, and, therefore, their sale to the plaintiff was unlawful having regard to the provisions of that Act. The Lahore High Court held that the sale did not infringe the provisions of that Act because the sale of trees was not a sale of land. The High Court was not concerned with the question whether on a transfer of land trees standing on it passed to the transferee or not. In _Nasib Singh_ v. _Amin Chand(')·_ it was held that the suit for possession of certain mango, shisham and jaman trees was not a suit between a landlord and his tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act and consequently the Civil Court was competent to try the suit. There can be no doubt that trees are capable of being transferred apart from land, and if a· person transfers trees.. -0r gives a right to a person to cut trees and remove them it cannot be said that he .has transferred land. .B.ut we are concerned with a different_ question and the question is whether under s. l l of the Act trees are included within tl1e expression "right, title and interest of the land-owner in the land of the tenancy". It seems to us that this expression "right, title and interest of the land-owner in the land" is wide enough to include trees standing on the land. It is clear. that under s. 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless a different intention' is expressed or implied, transfer of land would include trees ·sritnding on it. It seems to us that we should construe s. 11 in the same manner. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the. trees standing on the land transferred to Moti Ram under s. 11 of the Act are worth about Rs. 76,000, and it could not have been the intention to transfer Rs. 76,000 worth of trees for Rs. 62/56. He says that the trees are really forest trees and it was never the intention of the legislature to vest forest trees in the tenants acquiring land under s. 11 of ilie Act. But no · such contention seems to have been raised in the written statement filed by the· appellants. It might have been different if it had·been proved that the portion of the area transferred to Moti Ram was a natural' forest. [see _Kaju Mal_ v. _Salig Ram(')]._ - The learned counsel referring to s. 84 of the Act points out that one of the consequences of vesting of land in the State Government under s. 83 is that trees expressly vest in ilie State. He says that if it was the intention to vest trees in the tenant acquiring land' (1) A.1.R. 1942 Lah. 152. ' (2) (1919) Punj. Rec. 237. I I 6 SUPRBIE COURT HEPORTS [1968] 2 S.C'.R. under s. I I of the Act, it \llluld ha\c been simihtrly so cxprcs;ed. We arc unable lo accede lo this rnntcntion. Section 84(a)(i) reads as follows : "84. When a notification under section 83 has been published in the Gazette notwithstanding anylhin~ contained in any contract or <loculllcnt or in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter sctforth shall, from the beginning or the date of vesting ensue in respect of the land to which the notification applies, namdy : (a) all rights, title and interest uf,i11 the land owners ( i) in every such land includinl! cultivable or barren land, ghasnis, charands, trees. wells, tanks. ponds, water channels, ferries, pathways, hats, ba7.ars and melas; .... " lf'lh~ contention of the learned counsel were correct. even cultivable land which is expressly mentioned i;i s. 84(a) (i) would not \est Ill the tenant under s. 11 of the Act. Section 11 is draft··d very simply and under sub-s.16) the tenant bcconrcs the owner of the land comprised in the tenancy on and from the date of grant of the cer•ilicatc. and it is expressly provided that the right. title and interest of the landowner in the said lanll shall determine. In the context the word "owner" is very C<llllprchcnsive indeed, and it implies that all rights, title and interest of the landowner pass to the tenant. Further, it seems to us that it would lead to utter confusion if the contention of the learned counsel is accepted. There would be interminable disputes as to the rights of th~ erstwhile landowners to go on the lands of erstwhile tenants and cut trees or take the fruit. Moreover, under s. 15 of the Act we would. following the,;unc reasoning, have to hold that the trees on the land of the landowner did not vest in the State. This could hard!\' have been the intention. For the aforesaid reasons we must uphold the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner, although for different reasons. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. R.K.P.S. _A_ _ppea/_ _dismissed._ _\ B ### c D E .F G