1. Jagir abolition — contracts for cutting forest trees — confiscation of produce by State — claim of infringement of fundamental right to property. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 151
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, B.P. SINHA, K. SUBBA RAO AND K.N. WANCHOO, JJ.
(1) Rameshwar Proshad Khandelwal (In Petn. No. 172 of 55). (2) Babu Ram (In Petn. No. 173 of 55). (3) Meher Chand and Anr. (In Petn No. 177 of 55). (4) Vir Sen Dosaj (In Petn. No. 178 of 55). (5) Laxmi Swarup and Anr. (In Petn.No. 179 of 55). (6) Sarvakissan Mehta (In Petn. No. 180 of 55). (7) Bhajan Shankar Jha (In Petn. No. 181 of 55). (8) Shankar Das (In Petn. No. 182 of 55). (9) Ram Swarup Vasistha (In Petn. No. 183 of 55). (10) Vir Sen Dosaji (In Petn. No. 430 of 55). (11) Pyarelal Gajri (In Petn. No. 431 of 55). (12) Pyarelal Palta (In Petn. No.4 of 56). (13) Surendra Nath Dosaj (In Petn. No. 5 of 56) (14) Satya Prakash (In Petn. No. 14 of 56). (15) Yashwant Rai Loomba (In Petn.) No.18 of 56). (16) Sardar Pratap Singh (In Petn. No.19 of 56). (17) Haridev (In Petn. No. 30 of 56). (18) Bhupendra Singh (In Petn. No.31 of 56). (19) Nathulal Mantri (In Petn. No.34 of 56). (20) Baij Nath Mishra (In Petn. No.77 of 56). (21) Nauhria Ram (In Petn. No. 89 of 56). (22) Sardar Harnam Singh (In. Petn. No.92 of 56). (23) Nanoolal Agarwal (In Petn. No.99 of 56) and (24) Amrik Rai (In Petn. No. 232 of 56)- Petitioners
Versus
Commissioners, Land Reforms and Jagirs, Madhya Bharat (Now Madhya Pradesh) and Others-Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 172, 173, 177-183, 430 & 431 of 1955 and Nos. 4, 5, 14, 18, l9, 30, 31, 34, 77 89, 92, 99 and 232 of 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him, for Petitioner (In Petn. No. 5/56): Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Petrs. (In Petns. Nos. 172,173,177-183, 430 & 431/55 and 4, 14, 18, 19, 30, 31, 34, 77. 89, 92, 99 and 232/56); Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India (M/s, H. J. Umrigar, Shiv Dayal & R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents (In Petns. Nos. 172, 173 & 430/55 and 4, 5/56): M/s. H. J. Umrigar, Shiv Dayal and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondents (In Petns. Nos. 177-183 and 431/55 and 14, 18, 19, 30, 31, 34, 77, 89, 92, 99 & 232/56).
Advocates:
D.N.MUKHERJI, H.J.Umrigar, H.N.SANYAL, N.C.CHATTERJI, R.H.Dhebar, SHIV DAYAL, SHIV DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA
D.N.MUKHERJI, H.J.Umrigar, H.N.SANYAL, N.C.CHATTERJI, R.H.Dhebar, SHIV DAYAL, SHIV DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA
A license to work on immovable property does not transfer ownership of movable property unless coupled with a specific grant. Officers authorized to execute government contracts cannot sell state property or extend contracts without explicit delegated authority.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Jagir Forests (Prevention of Indiscriminate Cutting) Act, 1950 - Section 3 - Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 - Section 6 - Indian Easements Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Madhya Bharat Forest Act, 1960 - Sections 26(2)(a) and 34 - Fundamental right to property - Transfer of title to forest produce - Whether permission to work in forests or extension of contracts by forest officers without authority confers ownership of trees - A license to enter immovable property to perform an act does not, by itself, transfer ownership of movable property therein unless coupled with a grant of such property (Paras 10, 11, 12).
(B) Government Contracts - Article 299(1) of the Constitution - Notification specifying officers to execute contracts on behalf of the State does not automatically confer power to sell State property or grant extensions of contracts without proper sanction (Para 10).
(C) Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 32 - A petition under Article 32 is not maintainable unless the petitioner establishes the existence of a fundamental right (Para 15).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners entered into contracts with jagirdars for cutting forest trees. Following the abolition of jagirs, the forests became State property. Petitioners claimed that forest officers extended their contracts or granted licenses, thereby transferring ownership of the timber, charcoal, and kattha. The State subsequently confiscated these materials, leading the petitioners to claim a violation of their fundamental right to hold and dispose of property.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the forest officers lacked the authority to grant extensions of contracts or sell State property. The permissions granted were mere licenses to work the land and did not constitute a legal transfer of title to the trees. Consequently, the petitioners never acquired legal ownership of the forest produce.
Issues: Whether the acts of forest officers in extending contracts or granting permissions transferred the legal title of forest produce to the petitioners, thereby creating a fundamental right to property.
Ratio Decidendi: A license to perform an act on immovable property does not transfer ownership of movable property unless specifically granted. Furthermore, officers authorized to execute government contracts under Article 299(1) cannot sell State property or extend contracts without specific delegated power. Without a legal transfer of title, no fundamental right to property exists to be infringed.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
-
administrative law
- delegation of power (Para 10)
- property law
- environmental and forest law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim ownership of forest produce and violation of property rights — State contends property in trees never passed to petitioners. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Forest officers lacked authority to transfer title via contract extensions — license to work immovable property does not automatically grant ownership of movable produce. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. A license to enter and work on immovable property does not transfer ownership of movable property unless coupled with a specific grant of such property. (Para 11 , 15 )
5. Petitions dismissed — parties to bear their own costs. (Para 16 )
6. Does a license to work in a forest transfer ownership of the trees?
No. A license grants a right to do something on immovable property that would otherwise be unlawful, but it does not pass ownership of movable property unless the license is coupled with a specific grant of that property. (Para 11 )
7. Can forest officers transfer title to state-owned trees via contract extensions?
Only if they are delegated the power to sell the property. Mere authorization to execute contracts on behalf of the government does not confer the power to sell or transfer title without proper sanction. (Para 10 )
8. Does the Madhya Bharat Forest Act provide for the transfer of property in forest produce?
No. The Act deals with the management of forests and provides exemptions from penalties; it does not govern the sale of forest produce or the lease of forest lands for exploitation. (Para 12 )
9. Is a petition under Article 32 maintainable if no legal title to the property is established?
No. A petition under Article 32 is only maintainable if the petitioner demonstrates the infringement of a fundamental right, such as the right to hold and dispose of property. (Para 15 )
Judgment
K. N. WANCHOO, J. : These are twenty-four petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. We propose to deal with them by one judgment, as the main point involved in them is common.
2. The petitions fall into three groups. The first group consists of ten petitions relating to Sirsi jagir (hereinafter called the Sirsi petitions). The second group comprises nine petitions relating to Pohri jagir (hereinafter called the Pohri petitions). The third group consists of five petitions relating to Palpurjagir ( hereinafter called the Palpur petitions). There are some differences in detail between the three groups, and we shall give the facts of each group separately, after setting out certain preliminary matters common to all the petitions.
3. Abolition of jagirs was under contemplation in the former State of Madhya Bharat (now included in Madhya Pradesh). In order, therefore, to preserve the forest resources of jagirs to be abolished, the State of Madhya Bharat passed an Act called the "Jagir Forests (Prevention of, Indiscriminate Cutting Act. No. 55 of 1950," (hereinafter called the Cutting Act), which came into force on July 3,1950. Section 3 of the Act provides restrictions on the power of a jagirdar to deal with the forests in his jagir, and the relevant portion of that section is in these terms:-
"Except for his own bona fide Nister purposes or those of the villagers residing in the Jagir area concerned, no jagirdar shall cut, or cause to be cut, or authorise any person to cut or cause to be cut any tree in the forest area of jagir without the previous sanction obtained in writing of the Commissioner for Jagirs .,.....,...., who shall not give such sanction without the previous consultation of the Chief Conservator of Forests. Such sanction may be subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be Imposed by the Jagir Commissioner."
The Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, No. 28 of 1951, (hereinafter called the Abolition Act) was passed in that year and received the assent of the President on November 27, 1951. Before, however, a date could be appointed for the resumption of jagirs under S. 3 of the Abolition Act, an injunction was issued on December 7,1951 restraining the Government of Madhya Bharat from putting it into force. This injunction continued up to December 4, 1952, when the writ petitions in which the injunction had been issued were dismissed. On that very day a notification was issued under S. 3 of the Abolition Act and all jagirs in Madhya Bharat stood resumed.
4. Section 6 of the Abolition Act will have to be referred to later and is in these terms :
"Where a Jagirdar has on or after the 29th January, 1949-
(a) granted a lease of his jagir land or any part thereof for any non-agricultural purpose for a period of 3 years or more; or
(b) granted a lease of or entered :into a contract relating to, any forest in his Jagir land for a period of 3 years or more ; and the Jagir Commissioner is satisfied that such lease or contract was not made or entered into in the normal course of management but-in anticipation of legislation for the abolit on of Jagirs, the Jagir Commissioner may, according to the rules made by the Government in this behalf, by order in writing, cancel the lease or the contract, as the case may be.
5. The facts of the Sirsi petitions are these : The jagirdar of Sirsi applied to the Commissioner or Jagirs on July 12, 1952, for permission to cut forest trees in about three thousand bighas in his jagir. While this application was pending, he gave contracts to the ten petitioners on various dates in November1952, to cut forest in certain specified areas of his jagir on payment of certain premia, and the contracts were for a period ending June 30, 1954. Payments were made in part to the jagirdar by the petitioners soon after. The sanction of the Jagir Commissioner was, however, received in relation to these contracts on January 19, 1954, except in one case where sanction had been given earlier in 1953.
