Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 1894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Sita Ram — Appellant
Vs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh — Respondent
RSA No. 470 of 2003
Decided on : 07-05-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondent:R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Vidushi Sharma, Advocate
The conditional sanction order for felling trees lapsed after the death of the original permit holder, and a mere receipt cannot confer ownership. The plaintiff was required to seek fresh permission for felling the trees.
Headnote:
trees - Ownership Dispute - Forest Act, Section 80 CPC - [Forest Act, Section 80 CPC] - The court discussed the ownership dispute over trees and the requirement for seeking fresh permission for felling trees after the death of the original permit holder. The court emphasized that a mere receipt cannot confer ownership and that the conditional sanction order lapsed after the death of the original permit holder, requiring the plaintiff to seek fresh permission.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming ownership of trees on a land and seeking permission to fell the trees. The suit was contested by the defendants, and the lower courts dismissed the suit. The appeal was based on the question of whether the death of the original permit holder reinstated the matter for grant of permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was premature as the conditional sanction order made in favor of the original permit holder had lapsed after his death. The plaintiff's claim of ownership based on a receipt was rejected, and it was emphasized that the plaintiff needed to seek fresh permission for felling the trees.
Issues: Ownership dispute over trees, validity of conditional sanction order, requirement for seeking fresh permission after the death of the original permit holder.
Ratio Decidendi: The conditional sanction order lapsed after the death of the original permit holder, and the plaintiff's claim of ownership based on a receipt was not valid. The suit was deemed premature, and the plaintiff was required to seek fresh permission for felling the trees.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that there was no merit in the appeal.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sharma, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 1.7.2003 rendered by learned Additional District Judge(I) Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 114-N/2000.
2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (herein after referred to as 'plaintiff' for brevity sake) filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (herein after referred to as 'defendants' for brevity sake) on the averments that he was owner of 127 Khair trees, 360 firewood trees and bushes growing on the land comprised in Khewat No. 43 min Khatauni No. 84 min, Khasra Nos. 167, 168, 252, 257, 259, 262, 264, 274 and 283 measuring 8-34-48 hectares, situate in Mohal Luterh, Mauza Anuhi, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. According to him, these trees were sold to him by Shri Jagan Nath, Mohatmim of Mahadev Mandir for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and respondents have no right to refuse sanction for felling of trees. Permission, in fact, was previously accorded in favour of Jagan Nath, Mohatmim of Mahadev Mandir and Government has approved the sale of trees in his favour. Mohatmim died on 25.7.1993.
3. Suit was contested by the defendants. It was admitted that conditional sanction for felling of trees was given in favour of Jagan Nath, Mohatmim of Mahadev Mandir. Alleged agreement to sell the trees did not confer any right to sell the trees.
4. Issues were framed on 28.10.1996 by learned Sub Judge, 1st Class. He dismissed the suit on 1.8.2000. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala. He also dismissed the appeal on 1.7.2003. Hence, this Appeal.
5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law on 24.12.2003: "Whether in view of the death of Jagar Nath, Mohitmim of the temple, who had earlier processed the matter for grant of requisite permission from the Forest Department, will have the effect of re-instating the matter afresh by the legal representatives? If no, whether the impugned judgment and decree can be maintainable?"
6. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, on the basis of substantial question of law, has vehemently argued that his client has become owner of the trees on the basis of conditional permission accorded to Mohatmim Jagan Nath. Respondents were bound to complete codal formalities by permitting him to fell the trees.
7. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
9. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. According to him, Jagan Nath was Mohatmim of Mahadev Mandir. He died on 25.7.1993. Jagan Nath was in possession of the suit land. He made an application to the Government for felling trees standing on the suit land. Sanction was accorded by the Government. Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Jagan Nath for the sale of trees for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-. However no felling order was issued by the Forest Department. He issued notices Ext. P-1 and Ext. P-2. According to him, he was entitled for felling orders.
10. PW-2 Hem Raj deposed that on 5.12.1992, he prepared Ext. P-2/A at the behest of the Sita Ram and Jagan Nath. Contents of the agreement were read over to them and they have admitted them to be true and have put their signatures on the same. In his presence, Rs. 60,000/- were paid by Sita Ram to Jagan Nath.
11. PW-3 Devi Dass has deposed that plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell Khair trees for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- as per document Ext. PW-2/A. Plaintiff has also placed on record copy of Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 as Ext. P-3.
12. DW-1 Kishori Lal has proved Ext. DW-1/A, copy of application, Ext. DW-1/B letter written by DFO and Ext. DW- 1/C receipt of said letter. According to him, felling order was not issued in favour of the plaintiff bec
