1. Contractual right to cut trees granted by intermediary to third party — Vesting of forest lands and tree rights under Section 5(aa), West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 182
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
(1) Ram Kissen Sinha (In C. A. No. 781 of 1963)
(2) Sambhu Nath Pal (In C. A. No. 782 of 1963)
(3) Dharamraj Tewary and another (In C. A. Nos. 783 and 784 of 1963), Appellants
Versus
(1) The Divisional Forest Officer, Bankura and others (In C. A. No. 781 of 1963)
(2) The State of W.B. and others (In C. A. Nos. 782 to 784 of 1963), Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 781 to 784 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, for Appellant (In C. A. No. 781 of 1963); Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (M/s. Ramkrishna Pal, Taraknath Roy and D. N. Mukherjee Advocates, with him), for Appellants (In C. A. Nos. 782 to 784 of 1963); -Mr. C. K. Daphtary. Attorney General for India (M/s. S. C. Bose and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (In C. A. No.781 of 1963); Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/S. S. C. Bose and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (In C. As. Nos. 782 to 783 of 1963) and Respondents (In C. A. No. 784 of 1963).
Advocates:
B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, D.N.MUKHERJI, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.BOSH, RAMKRISHNA PAL, S.C.BOSE, TARAKNATH ROY
B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, D.N.MUKHERJI, N.C.CHATTERJI, P.K.BOSH, RAMKRISHNA PAL, S.C.BOSE, TARAKNATH ROY
Rights to trees held by any person, including third parties via contract, vest in the State under Section 5(aa) of the Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. The phrase "any other person" encompasses such third parties, and the acquisition is constitutionally protected via Schedule IX of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 - Section 5(aa) - Vesting of rights to trees - Interpretation of "together with" and "held by an intermediary or any other person" - Right to cut trees granted to a third party by contract - Whether such rights vest in the State upon notification - The expression "together with" is used as an enumeration of items of property vesting in the State and does not imply a necessity for common ownership of land and trees - The phrase "or any other person" clearly encompasses third parties who hold rights to trees independently of the land - Legislative intent to overcome previous judicial decisions confirming that such rights vest in the State. (Paras 4, 5, 6)
(B) Constitution of India - 17th Amendment - Schedule IX - Absence of compensation for acquisition of rights - Once an Act is included in Schedule IX, the absence of a provision for compensation does not render the acquisition unconstitutional. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
A third party was granted the right to cut trees in certain forest areas by a proprietor through a contract. Subsequently, the State government issued a notification for the vesting of the estate. The legislature amended the vesting section to include all rights to trees held by an intermediary or any other person. The third party challenged the vesting of these rights and the constitutional validity of the amendment due to the lack of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plain language of the amended section covers rights held by persons other than the intermediary. The amendment was specifically designed to ensure that rights to trees, even if severed from the land, vest in the State.
Issues: Whether the rights to cut trees granted to a third party under contract vest in the State under Section 5(aa) of the Act, and whether the lack of compensation for such rights renders the provision unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that "together with" means "as well as" and does not require the land and trees to be owned by the same person. The inclusion of "any other person" explicitly extends the vesting to third-party right holders. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Act in Schedule IX of the Constitution protects the acquisition from challenges based on the absence of compensation.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 5(aa) vests rights to trees held by third parties where such rights were severed from land ownership or lack compensation provisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
3. The phrase together with denotes enumeration, not integrality, and any other person encompasses third parties holding rights to trees independently of land ownership. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Section 5(aa) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, vests all rights to trees in forests in the State, regardless of whether held by intermediaries or third parties. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeals dismissed. (Para 9 )
6. Does Section 5(aa) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, vest rights to trees held by a third party?
Yes. The court held that the expression any other person in Section 5(aa) includes third parties who may not have rights to the land but possess rights to the trees or produce. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. How should the phrase together with be interpreted in the context of Section 5(aa)?
The phrase together with is used as an enumeration of property items vesting in the State, meaning as well as, and does not require the land and tree rights to be held by the same owner. (Para 4 )
8. Does the absence of a compensation provision prevent the vesting of rights under Section 5(aa)?
No. The plain words of the vesting section operate regardless of the absence of compensation provisions, although such absence might otherwise raise constitutional validity issues. (Para 7 )
9. Does the inclusion of an Act in Schedule IX of the Constitution affect its validity regarding lack of compensation?
Yes. Following the 17th Amendment and the inclusion of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act in Schedule IX, the absence of compensation for acquired rights does not render the acquisition unconstitutional. (Para 8 )
Judgment
AYYANGAR, J. :
These appeals are before us by virtue of certificates granted by the High Court under Art, 133(1)(c) of the Constitution and they raise for consideration the question of the proper construction of S. 5(aa) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (West Bengal Act I of 1954) as amended by West Bengal Act XXV of 1957.
2. The relevant facts in these our appeals are analogous and they raise the common question of law which we have already indicated. For the disposal of these appeals it is sufficient therefore to refer to the facts of any one of them. We propose to set out those of Civil Appeal 781 of 1963.
3. The Zamindar of Simlapal in the Collectorate of Bankura entered into a contract with the appellant - Ram Kissen Singh and, by a document dated September 3, 1946, granted him the right to cut the trees in certain demarcated areas of certain forests of the Zamindari on payment of a sum of Rs. 7131.50. Under the terms of the said document the period during which the appellant was given this right to cut trees was to end on April 14, 1955. The appellant started the cutting operations and cut only for the first few years, but thereafter action was taken by the Forest Officers of the State to prevent him from further cutting under the powers vested in them by the West Bengal Private Forests Act, 1948. Thereupon the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders passed against him and also for an injunction restraining the Forests Officers from taking delivery of possession and from cutting and disposing of the forests covered by his agreement. By the time the petition was filed the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (Act I of 1954) (hereafter referred to as the Act) had been passed and in the counter-affidavit which was filed to this petition reliance was placed upon its provisions for contending that the "estate" belonging to the Zamindar in which the forest lay as well as all the rights to the trees therein to whomsoever belonging had vested in the State under Section 5 of the Act by reason of a notification issued by the State Government under Section 4. By the date the writ petition came to be heard the West Bengal Legislature had, in view of certain decisions rendered by the Calcutta High Court which held that the terms of S. 5 of the Act which specified the property or interest in property which would vest in the Government did not include the right to cut trees in a forest which had been granted to a third person by the proprietor or intermediary before the date of the vesting, amended the said vesting section by introducing S. 5(aa) to have retrospective effect from the date of the commencement of the principal Act. Section 5(aa) read :
"5. Upon the due publication of a notification under S. 4, on and from the date of vesting-
(aa) all lands in any estate comprised in a forest together with all rights to the trees therein or to the produce thereof and held by an intermediary or any other person shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or Tribunal, vest in the State;"
After this amendment was brought to the notice of the Court the petitioner was allowed to amend his writ petition by adding allegations (a) regarding the construction of the said section, and (b) its constitutional validity. The petition then came on for hearing in December, 1958 and the learned, Single Judge, by his judgment dated December 24, 1958 discharged the rule following certain earlier decisions of his on the same point. An appeal filed to the Division Bench under the Letters Patent was also dismissed but the learned Judges granted a certificate under Art. 133(1)(c) and that is how the appeal is before us.
4. The first, and possibly the only, question that now calls for consideration is whether the terms of S. 5(aa) are sufficient and apt to provide for the vesting of the right to cut the trees w
