SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 370

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
S. RANGANATHAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.
Raj Kumar Rajindra Singh, Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others, Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2966 of 1979, D/- 20-7-1990.
H.P. Private Forests Act (6 of 1955), S.4 (Para 19)
Advocates appeared :
Mr. F. S. Nariman and Mr. V. A. Bobde, Sr. Advocates, Mr. S. D. Mudaliar and Mr. C. K. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates with them, for Appellant; Mr. K. G. Bhagat, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate with him, for Respondents.

Advocates:
C.K.RAINA PARKHI, F.S.NARIMAN, K.G.Bhagat, NARESH K.SHARMA, S.D.Mudaliar, V.A.BOBDE

Headnote:

Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1954 – Sections 4 and 29 - Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 - Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 - Section 27 – Tenancy and Land Laws – Notification - Forest lands - Agreements of Lease - Execution of - Appeal against the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular First Appeal arising out of Suit - Appellant - original plaintiff - is second son of late Raja Padam Singh, ex-ruler of Bushahr State - He filed a suit principally against Union of India and Government of Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh for a declaration of his proprietary rights in about 1720 acres of forest land - He traced his title to said lands to a Patta executed by his father and to Order of even date directing corresponding mutation changes. In the said suit Choudhary Gopal Singh & Co., a forest contractor, was added as pro forma defendant No. 3 but no relief was claimed against said party - Held, State Government was competent to issue two notifications under Section 4 of Act, 1954, and it was not justified in annulling them on the erroneous premise that the said lands belonged to the State Government - Division Bench, therefore, ought not to have reversed the trial court on this point - Appellant-plaintiff has also claimed a refund with interest of market value of trees totalling 10,505 cut and sold by he Forest Department during period from 1980 to 1985 notwithstanding order of this Court - In view of fact that Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 has since intervened we do not entertain this claim in present proceedings - Refusal to entertain this claim will not debar the plaintiff from seeking any relief that is available to him under 1972 Act – Direct to State Government to refund Rs. 3.36 lakhs with interest at 9 per annum thereon to the appellant-plaintiff after deducting royalty at 15 – Court also direct refund of amount of Rs. 4.60 lakhs with interest accrued thereon lying in fixed deposits in State Bank of India under High Courts order - Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1970 arising out of Suit No. 11 of 1967. The appellant - original plaintiff - is the second son of late Raja Padam Singh, the ex-ruler of Bushahr State. He filed a suit on 18th Nov., 1964 principally against the Union of India and the Government of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh for a declaration of his proprietary rights in about 1720 acres of forest land situate in Khatas Nos. 1and 2, Khataunis Nos 1 to 25 comprising 106 plots, both measured and unmeasured, bearing Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 6, 23, 30, 34, 44, 108, 218, 222, 309, 341, 409, 479, 606, 433, 241, 732/280, 736/394 and 728/402 of Chak Addu, tehsil Rampur, in the present district of Mahasu in Himachal Pradesh. He traced his title to the said lands to a Patta executed by his father on 14th Maghar 1999, Bikrami, i.e. 28th November, 1942 A.D., and to the Order No. 5158 of even date directing corresponding mutation changes. In the said suit Choudhary Gopal Singh & Co., a forest contractor, was added as pro forma defendant No. 3 but no relief was claimed against the said party. The said suit was filed on l8th November, 1964 in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Mahasu, but on the upward revision of the suit valuation for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction the plaint was presented to the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Bench, Shimla and was renumbered as Suit No. 11 of 1967. The said suit was tried on the original side of the High Court by Jagjit Singh, J. who by his judgment and order dated 6th April, 1970 substantially decreed the suit, in that, he upheld the appellant-plaintiffs claim of ownership in respect of Khatas Nos. 1and 2, Khataunis Nos. 1to 25 comprising 106 plots bearing Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 6, 23, 30, 34, 44, 108, 218, 222, 309, 341, 409, 606, 4 and 33 situate in Chak Addu without prejudice to the application, if any, of Sec. 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The contesting defendants Nos. 1and 2 preferred an appeal, being Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1970, before the Division Bench of the High Court which came to be allowed on 31st December, 1977. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the grant made by the erstwhile ruler was in respect of revenue yielding lands only admeasuring about 263.4 bighas and not in respect of the forest lands. It, however, took the view that after the execution of the lease-deed dated 25th September, 1942, Exhibit D-1, in favour of the Government of Punjab, the Raja had no subsisting right in the forest lands in question which he could transfer by way of a grant. In that view of the matter the appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in toto with costs throughout. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original plaintiff has preferred this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. For the sake of convenience we will refer to the parties by their original position and description in the suit. We now proceed to set out the relevant facts.

The Raja of Rampur-Bushahr had sought the aid of the British Government in the management of his forests with a view to preserving, conserving and protecting the same from large scale illicit and indiscriminate cutting of trees. Pursuant to this request an agreement dated 20th June, 1864 was executed between the said Raja and the British Government whereunder a fixed royalty was agreed to be paid to the former. By a subsequent agreement dated 1st August, 1871, the Raja granted his rights in waif and windfall timber to the British Government in consideration of certain payments agreed upon under the said agreement. The terms of both these agreements were revised in 1877 whereby the British Government agreed to pay a fixed annual sum to the Raja on a fifty years lease renewable at the will of the British
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top